Moses Faison v. State of North Carolina ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-7596
    MOSES LEON FAISON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-hc-02164-M)
    Submitted: March 29, 2022                                          Decided: April 1, 2022
    Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Moses Leon Faison, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Moses Leon Faison seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition without prejudice as an unauthorized, successive § 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, 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 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 Faison’s informal brief, we
    conclude that Faison 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 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-7596

Filed Date: 4/1/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/1/2022