David Joseph Annarelli v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dep’t of Corr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6516
DAVID JOSEPH ANNARELLI,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dep’t of Corr.,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00025-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: September 16, 2022 Decided: October 14, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Joseph Annarelli, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
David Joseph Annarelli 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Annarelli has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We deny Annarelli’s motions for injunctive relief, discovery, and
appointment of counsel. 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 --