James Watwood v. Larry Edmunds ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6307 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6307
JAMES DAVID WATWOOD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LARRY T. EDMUNDS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00381-JAG-MRC)
Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James David Watwood, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6307 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
James David Watwood 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Watwood’s informal brief,
we conclude that he 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