Opinion
20-7183
10-06-2021
DEREK ANTOINE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Respondent - Appellee.
Derek Antoine Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 22, 2021
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-00291-MR)
Derek Antoine Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Derek Antoine Smith 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, 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)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Smith's informal brief and supplemental informal briefs, we conclude that Smith 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 Smith's motion for 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 [*] We previously remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling the court to determine whether Smith had shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the time to appeal. See Smith v. Hooks, 838 Fed.Appx. 787 (4th Cir. 2021) (No. 20-7183). On remand, the district court granted Smith an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and deemed his notice of appeal timely filed.