Court Opinion

ID: 4910900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-14 19:05:45.378171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:28.179661
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6803

JERRY HARCUM,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

JEFF NINES, Warden; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:20-cv-02028-GLR)

Submitted: September 9, 2021                                Decided: September 14, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Harcum, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jerry Harcum 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 Harcum’s informal brief,

we conclude that Harcum 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