USCA4 Appeal: 24-6381 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6229

LEVI G. SPRINGER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of VA DOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 24-6381

LEVI G. SPRINGER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of VA DOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01566-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: November 26, 2024 Decided: January 14, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6381 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levi Gary Springer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6381 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Levi G. Springer seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his

petition as an unauthorized, successive

petition and denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing. The orders are 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 Springer has not

made the requisite showing. Thus, we deny Springer’s motion for appointment of counsel.

We also deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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

3