Background
Rasheed Tamir Glover, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his state court conviction. District Judge Sherri A. Lydon accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and denied Glover relief on his petition. Glover then sought to appeal that denial to the Fourth Circuit.
Before an appeal of a § 2254 denial can proceed, federal law requires the petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) from a circuit justice or judge. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA will not issue unless the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record independently to determine whether Glover met that standard.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Gregory, Rushing, and Senior Judge Keenan concluded that Glover failed to make the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. Because the district court denied relief on the merits, Glover was required to demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong — the standard articulated in Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017). The court found he did not satisfy that threshold.
Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also declined to hold oral argument, finding that the record and briefs adequately presented the facts and legal contentions.
Key Takeaways
- A state prisoner appealing a § 2254 habeas denial must first obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); without it, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
- Where the district court denies habeas relief on the merits, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate the correctness of the constitutional ruling — a standard Glover did not meet here.
- This is an unpublished, non-precedential opinion and does not establish binding authority in the Fourth Circuit.
Why It Matters
This dismissal illustrates the significant gatekeeping function that the certificate of appealability requirement plays in federal habeas litigation. Even where a petitioner has secured counsel and pursued a full § 2254 petition through the district court, the failure to demonstrate that constitutional claims are reasonably debatable forecloses appellate review entirely — leaving the district court’s denial as the final word.
For practitioners, the decision is a reminder that the COA standard is not merely a formality. Counsel must carefully assess, before filing a notice of appeal, whether the constitutional claims raised below can survive the “reasonable jurists” scrutiny required by Buck v. Davis and its predecessors.