USCA4 Appeal: 22-7194 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7194

WILLIE TINSLEY SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00414-RGD-LRL)

Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 21, 2023

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Tinsley Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7194 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Tinsley Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Smith’s

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 Smith has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We also deny Smith’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

2