Terrence Mack Booth v. David Anderson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7000
TERRENCE MACK BOOTH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID ANDERSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00426-MHL-MRC)
Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrence Mack Booth, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Mack Booth seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
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)).
Preliminarily, we grant Booth’s motion to proceed on the district court record, but
we deny his motions for transcripts and for assignment of counsel. We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Booth 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 of 2 --