United States v. Jimmy Dawkins , 627 F. App'x 208 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7373
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMY PRUITT DAWKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:07-cr-01454-HMH-1; 6:15-cv-02411-HMH)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Pruitt Dawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen,
III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Pruitt Dawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 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.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in
the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dawkins’
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Dawkins has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
2
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
3