HOLLOMOND v. RAY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 21-6080

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal and denied the certificate of appealability because Hollomond failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the magistrate judge's decision debatable or wrong.

Bernard Hollomond appealed a magistrate judge's denial of his federal habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. To proceed with an appeal, Hollomond was required to obtain a certificate of appealability by demonstrating either that reasonable jurists could debate the district court's constitutional analysis (if denied on the merits) or that both the procedural ruling and the underlying constitutional claim were debatable (if denied on procedural grounds).

After independently reviewing the record, the court found that Hollomond failed to make the necessary showing for a certificate of appealability under either standard. Consequently, the court declined to issue the certificate and terminated the appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Standards for issuing a certificate of appealability in habeas cases
Difference between merits-based and procedurally-based denials for certificate purposes
Whether prisoner met burden of showing substantial constitutional question

Procedural posture

Hollomond appealed the magistrate judge's denial of his § 2254 habeas petition to the circuit court, seeking a certificate of appealability as a prerequisite to appellate review.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Bernard Hollomond seeks to appeal the magistrate judges order denying relief on Hollomonds 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 courts assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (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, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hollomond has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.