USCA4 Appeal: 24-6262 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6262

CHRISTOPHER LAMAR VICTORIA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN PALMER, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (8:23-cv-04677-MGL)

Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lamar Victoria, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6262 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Christopher Lamar Victoria seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Victoria’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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 Victoria has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Victoria’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Victoria’s motion for subpoenas. 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