Case ID: f-appx_591/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Hugh LINDSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-6767.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 16, 2015.
    Decided: Feb. 2, 2015.
    Timothy Hugh Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Lindsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lindsey’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Lindsey has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. 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. 
      
      
         Our recent decision in Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 2014 WL 7245453 (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 2014) (en banc), confirms the • correctness of the decision of the district court in this case.