Phillip Giles v. Chadwick Dotson

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7082 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7008 PHILLIP MICHAEL GILES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Respondent - Appellee. No. 24-7082 PHILLIP MICHAEL GILES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00519-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 15, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7082 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Michael Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7082 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/15/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Philip Michael Giles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the order dismissing his § 2254 petition. 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 Giles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Giles’ motions to place his appeals in abeyance, 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