Opinion
No. 18-7148
02-25-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THEODORE FULTON, a/k/a Uncle Teddy, a/k/a Teddy, Defendant - Appellant.
Theodore Fulton, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (3:14-cr-00554-JMC-1; 3:18-cv-00244-JMC) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Fulton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Theodore Fulton seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely Fulton's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have reviewed Fulton's informal brief and conclude that Fulton has failed to challenge on appeal the district court's dispositive procedural determination. This failure forecloses any challenge to the court's timeliness ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting importance of Rule 34(b) and reiterating that this court limits its review to issues preserved in the pro se appellant's informal brief). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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