Whether a state prisoner can obtain a certificate of appealability for a federal habeas petition when the district court denies relief on procedural grounds

No question identified. : Supreme Court of the United States Dominique A. Childs Petitioner, Vv. Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent Motion for Extension of time Comes now, Dominique A. Childs, Petitioner, seeking a Extension of time to file a writ of Certiorari. The time for filing this writ began Febuary 10th 2025. The Petitioner received the dated of this decision two weeks late in the mail, and it was during the time of a annual lockdown. It usually takes up to a week or two to schedule a time for to gather the information and this writ. Their are numerous of Certiorari, therefore, the a extension of 60 days or (on the law library. Time will be needed material thats required for filing and complex rules for filing the writ Petitioner is respectfully requesting or before) June 10th, 2025. Sineerely and truly yours, RECEIVED MAR 25 2025 SERGE OF THF CItERK UPREME CO: ——, My Adme is Dora: as| process of £/;, 76 wit of | how #0 we evteascen of Aime Loe Fehr The tinge for (IIS, the mea:/ Lek la te, The Filing Lar P's can and ZT need time dg figure ae alot of meterel Ahe Ang Pha S$ ege} ’eCeive been EN @ Gnnye/ lack dauin Lg ar the deus bbe Ge nen |. ty tol ‘Ae al motion ty WS C1 7 needs to be (eladed/ | lou-4 urn Mo-ch | Childs J. Gm in phe, =m not Sere ef, And Phe ¢ fs We Agave becacnlf Va Leseths aad ty Sign op b GO dey/ t¥tenslon xy File g Thank you | Se a eee Mt/ } Eee 4/ “equestag / Celttoran, fru A/ yours, | pS _ _CLERK’S OFFICE Package Tracking Label UCHMOND VA REDE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS f Dominique A. Childs FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Di je A 1100 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 501 ilwyn Correctional Center RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 i} A asre Personal ID: 1106367 PR ee RECEIVE. ee oor PBO4E6C7BC977 _ FEB 10 2095 oe Fo _ MAILROOM F Dillwyn Correctional Center ——— coe _ ee : Clerk of Court — Dominique Ashley Childs Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk 0 #1106367 ONLY IN VADOC CENTRALIZED MAIL DISTRIBUTION OPEN 3521 Woods Way PRESENCE OF State Farm, VA 23160 VOU MPVEAl. Lor lZt voc. 15 Pied. itu i fiZuZe rg. | ord UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7227 DOMINIQUE ASHLEY CHILDS, Petitioner Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. Submitted: September 30, 2024 Decided: October 17, 2024 Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dominique Ashley Childs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. UDSLA4 APPEadl. 25-1221 VOC: 15 Fuea: lus f1Z4UuZ4 rg. 2012 PER CURIAM: Dominique Ashley Childs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable “[uJnless 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. See 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 Childs 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