USCA4 Appeal: 23-7223 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7223

WILLIAM WHITE, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00637-MHL-MRC)

Submitted: September 11, 2024 Decided: October 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William White, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7223 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William White, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 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 White has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny White’s motions for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny all pending motions. 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