Antwine Reid v. D. Miller, Sr. ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7027
ANTWINE JERMAINE REID,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D. L. MILLER, SR., Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01162-LMB-JFA)
Submitted: October 28, 2020 Decided: November 17, 2020
Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antwine Jermaine Reid, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antwine Jermaine Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 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 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)).
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 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, 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, 565
U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Reid’s informal brief, we
conclude that Reid has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Reid’s motion 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
2