Court Opinion

ID: 9896275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:01:08.161851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:32.861944
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6778      Doc: 8         Filed: 11/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6778

        JAMEL BYRD,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        ROBERT VAN GORDER,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:23-cv-00178-MR)

        Submitted: October 30, 2023                                  Decided: November 7, 2023

        Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jamel Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6778         Doc: 8      Filed: 11/07/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamel Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his

        28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. 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 orders are 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 Byrd’s informal brief, we

        conclude that Byrd 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

                                                     2