Opinion
No. 20-7878
03-29-2021
HERBERT J. ROBINSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Respondent - Appellee.
Herbert J. Robinson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:19-cv-00511-MR) Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert J. Robinson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Herbert J. Robinson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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)).
In his informal brief, Robinson does not challenge the district court's determination that his § 2254 petition was untimely. Because, on appeal, we limit our review to the issues raised in the appellant's informal brief, 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."), we conclude that Robinson has failed to show that the district court's procedural ruling is debatable.
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