Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-07196/USCOURTS-ca4-23-07196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7196

CHRISTOPHER MANN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN MATTI,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

WARDEN CLEVELAND FRIDAY,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00387-DLB)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Mann, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7196 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Mann seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) 

(explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from 

latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is 

not appealable unless 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, as here,

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, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in his informal brief, we 

conclude that Mann has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7196 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2