USCA4 Appeal: 23-7227 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7227

DOMINIQUE ASHLEY CHILDS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00695-JAG-MRC)

Submitted: September 30, 2024 Decided: October 17, 2024

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominique Ashley Childs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7227 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Dominique Ashley Childs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable “[u]nless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 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. See 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 Childs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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