Riley Dyson Biro v. Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7146
RILEY DYSON BIRO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01210-MSN-JFA)
Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: March 4, 2025
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Riley Dyson Biro, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Riley Dyson Biro seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his three
consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion. The orders are 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 Biro has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Biro’s motion for summary reversal, 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 --