Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07373/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07373-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy Pruitt Dawkins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7373

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JIMMY PRUITT DAWKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:07-cr-01454-HMH-1; 6:15-cv-02411-HMH)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Pruitt Dawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, 

III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7373 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Pruitt Dawkins 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 appealability. 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in 

the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dawkins’ 

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s disposition, Dawkins has forfeited appellate review of 

the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 15-7373 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-7373 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3