USCA4 Appeal: 23-7101 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7101

RICHARD WADE KENDRICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

L. EDMONDS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00505-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 9, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7101 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Wade Kendrick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of

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

right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

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

we conclude that Kendrick 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, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We deny Kendrick’s motion for 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