Mark English v. Director, VDOC ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7492
MARK ENGLISH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00571-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: February 18, 2021 Decided: February 23, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark English, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark English seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012)
(explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from
latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because English’s informal brief does not challenge the dispositive
timeliness determination by the district court, he has forfeited appellate review. See
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