USCA4 Appeal: 24-6642 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6642

JACK EUGENE LEWIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK S. DOTSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Robert S. Ballou, District Judge. (7:22-cv-00421-RSB-JCH)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Eugene Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6642 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Jack Eugene Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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 Lewis’s informal brief, we conclude that Lewis 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 Lewis’s motion for a certificate of appealability and to appoint counsel 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