John O'Neill v. Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6088 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6088

JOHN DANIEL O’NEILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:25-cv-00946-MHL-MRC)

Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026

Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Daniel O’Neill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6088 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: John Daniel O’Neill seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 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); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688-89 (4th Cir. 2004). 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, as here, 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 O’Neill 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