Kevin Gregory v. Commonwealth of Virginia

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6318 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6318 KEVIN LEE GREGORY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROY CHEATAM, Warden; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00447-AWA-RJK) Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: September 23, 2025 Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Lee Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6318 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Lee Gregory, a federal inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Gregory’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a state court detainer. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Gregory 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 2