Court Opinion

ID: 9837990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:08.257002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.701664
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6526      Doc: 9        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6526

        JOWARSKI RUSSELL NEDD,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

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

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-00279-JAG-MRC)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jowarski Russell Nedd, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6526         Doc: 9      Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jowarski Russell Nedd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

        28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as unauthorized and successive. 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 v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

        Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

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

        conclude that Nedd 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