Whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and speedy trial was violated when the petitioner was denied adequate access to legal research facilities and experienced prison lockdowns that impeded his ability to prepare legal documents

No question identified. : l. Giles Petition toe Rehearing was denied by the ourth Crcuit Coues of Appeals on July Ry RORS. R. Gries, who Is an incaucerale \5pro-Se litigant, Is a\\owed aecess to the prison Jaw \ibeary only Your hours pr week which prevents hum feom competing necessary lega| Research Required to prepare and le an effechue and legally sufficient felon fora Weil of Cerliorari. Moreover, during a ten porod in July, ate Jey 2, 2025, Coiles had no Gcoass to he prison law libeary due to the Sack Vel the PRI20N in lich, Gres 1s Confined Was on lockdown status. 4. Giles believes Hho the 1s85ues presented. by his Polition for @ WE} of Cophiorari — Involving he Wawer Of his Slalutory Right to G-Speedy tera) Under Vieginia. Code See. 192-243, In Widlahon of his Sixth Amendment ogtt to eeclwe aasistince of Counsel and the Sera courl’s Atgected yeredict , In wolakon of his Sixth Amendment Leghl do tpeal hy jury — are mertorioces> 4 Giles has nol previously Peguested) an Zoos 4 extension of time te Pile a felibien foe G Weck of. Cee\orae’ . WHEREFORE, Giles peays he be tanked an. ‘extension ef time to Slea mezilorious Felition. for a Weit o§ Ceelinrari, Pr espe Vally ssubmodled. this. Eth. day Of Seplom ber, QBS. Psa: Philip Michael Giles. _. Bue Kingham Copeeetional Conln P.0. Box 440 Dillayn, VA £3936 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L, Phillip Michae) Giles, hereby ceed fy underponally ol poryeeg Thal a trae.and CoPecl copy Of the Molon foe keespondex\, by placi n9 Said Hotonin. @postege= aed. envelope Gnd&maling sad Vlopo Via United Skiles mad Wis Sth day ran Seplember, 2095 to Aindsay M Beookor, RoR Noeth Ninth S\poot hichmond, VA 4 of A Extension. 08 tune has-been provided No Counsel fog K3219. LY / AN q-¥2025 Phillip Michael Giles Dale 4 oaf4 IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT fel troner, Ne Recard .No.: Chadwick S: Dotson , Respondents. ee _. DECIARATION OF JNMATE FILING -Lam an ‘inmate confined. fo an.inshtution. Todays. 2025, Tam depassting the Molion Fee Extension of Time in Dis. Dicet in the 1ns}vldvon> infernal mai| system. Fiest-class postage 1s being prepaid either by me ae by the insdlubion on my behalf. J declare Under penal \y of peejury Thal the Fakegoing / thee Ane Cor pect : ) Signed. on —TB2025 _ USCA4 Appeal: 24-7008 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/15/2025 Pg: 1of3 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, Vv. 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. Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 15, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7008 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. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7008 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 dispositi