UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7526

TEON JAMELL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRAD PERRITT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00074-FDW)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Teon Jamell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Teon Jamell Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

(2012) petition as an unauthorized, successive petition over which it

lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A) (2012). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell,

(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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a

constitutional right. Slack,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not

made the requisite showing. Specifically, Williams’ failure to challenge the district

court’s jurisdictional ruling in his informal brief forecloses our consideration of that

dispositive holding on appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey,

(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

2 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