USCA4 Appeal: 21-7451 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7451

WILLIAM JAMES MITCHELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-02063-DKC)

Submitted: March 27, 2023 Decided: May 1, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William James Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7451 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: William James Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mitchell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mitchell’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Mitchell’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED