Court Opinion

ID: 4672463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-29 19:00:59.354127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:50.347797
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7690

ANTOINE MARTWAIN HILL-EL, a/k/a Antoine Martwain Hill, a/k/a Antoine M.
Hill,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

CALVIN JOHNSON,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:18-cv-01654-TDC)

Submitted: March 23, 2021                                         Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antoine Martwain Hill-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Antoine Martwain Hill-El 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. 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, 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)).

       On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th

Cir. R. 34(b).   Because Hill-El’s informal brief does not challenge the dispositive

timeliness determination by the district court, he has forfeited appellate review. See

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

                                             2