Christopher Lamar Victoria v. Warden Palmer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6262
CHRISTOPHER LAMAR VICTORIA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN PALMER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (8:23-cv-04677-MGL)
Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Lamar Victoria, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lamar Victoria seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Victoria’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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 Victoria has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Victoria’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Victoria’s motion for subpoenas. 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 --