Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Pruitt DAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-22
Citations: 627 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 15-7373
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Pruitt DAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Pruitt DAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7373.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2015.
Jimmy Pruitt Dawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 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 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 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.