Bryant Matthew Parker v. Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7436
BRYANT MATTHEW PARKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00807-AJT-MSN)
Submitted: January 31, 2023 Decided: February 16, 2023
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryant Matthew Parker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Matthew Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. 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, 115-16 (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 Parker has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Parker’s motions for 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 --