Opinion
23-6470
10-03-2023
CHE ERNEST HAZELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Che Ernest Hazell, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 28, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00077-HEH-MRC)
Che Ernest Hazell, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Che Ernest Hazell 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 Hazell's informal brief, we conclude that Hazell 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