Levi G. Springer v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of VA DOC

UNPUBLISHED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

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Levi G. Springer seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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 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 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 of 3 --