Jamel Byrd v. Robert Gorder ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6778 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6778
JAMEL BYRD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT VAN GORDER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:23-cv-00178-MR)
Submitted: October 30, 2023 Decided: November 7, 2023
Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamel Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6778 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jamel Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. 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 orders are 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)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Byrd’s informal brief, we
conclude that Byrd 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