USCA4 Appeal: 24-6984 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6984

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAUL QUINCHON ROBBS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00089-MR-WCM-1; 1:24- cv-00199)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaul Quinchon Robbs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6984 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Jermaul Quinchon Robbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182- (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 motion 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)).

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In his informal brief, Robbs reasserts the sentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel claims he raised in his § 2255 motion, but he does not address the district court’s findings that his motion was filed beyond the one-year limitations period and that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. Because Robbs’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See 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.”); see also Canady v. Crestar Mortg. Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that issues raised in notice of appeal but not briefed on USCA4 Appeal: 24-6984 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

appeal are deemed waived). 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