Jamarv Hammond v. Sheriff Al Cannon ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6114
JAMARV PAREMORE HAMMOND, a/k/a Jamarv P. Hammond, #265009,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF AL CANNON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-03545-JFA)
Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: April 27, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamarv Paremore Hammond, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamarv Paremore Hammond seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Hammond’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. Hammond also seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying his reconsideration motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). The district court’s orders are 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, 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 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 Hammond’s informal brief,
we conclude that Hammond 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