USCA4 Appeal: 23-6162 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/08/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6162

HARSHADKUMAR NANJIBHAI JADAV,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

J. WOODSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00136-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: November 6, 2023 Decided: December 8, 2023

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harshadkumar Nanjibhai Jadav, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6162 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/08/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Harshadkumar Nanjibhai Jadav seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A). A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jadav has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jadav’s

motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 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

2