USCA4 Appeal: 24-6552 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6552

LORENCE F. SMITH, II,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, FCI Bennettsville,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:22-cv-03340-JRR)

Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorence F. Smith, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6552 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Lorence F. Smith, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

his

petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler,

, 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

(d)(1)). The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

-41 (citing Slack v.

McDaniel,

(2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Smith’s informal brief, we

conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also

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, although we grant Smith’s motion to supplement his request for a

certificate of appealability, 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