Jon Jarrard, Sr. v. Wilfredo Martell

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Jon Jarrard, Sr. v. Wilfredo Martell

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6940 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6940

JON WYNN JARRARD, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN WILFREDO MARTELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (5:23-cv-02588-SAL)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jon Wynn Jarrard, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6940 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jon Wynn Jarrard, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition. 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 Jarrard 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished