Court Opinion

ID: 9397981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:36.260456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.542649
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7274      Doc: 15         Filed: 05/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7274

        TEVIN BROCK,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00585-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tevin Brock, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7274       Doc: 15          Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Tevin Brock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2254 petition. 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner

        satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s

        assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S.

        100, 115-17 (2017).

               Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Brock’s informal brief, we

        conclude that he 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