Court Opinion

ID: 9396896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:48.03353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.981960
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7327      Doc: 7        Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7327

        MAJOR LENNEL RICHARDSON, III,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN ALLEN GANG, Jessup Correctional Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
        THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:20-cv-00474-PX)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Major Lennel Richardson, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7327         Doc: 7      Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Major Lennel Richardson, III 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). When 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 Richardson’s informal brief,

        we conclude that Richardson 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