Christopher Mann v. Warden Matti

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7196
CHRISTOPHER MANN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MATTI,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
WARDEN CLEVELAND FRIDAY,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00387-DLB)
Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Mann, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Mann 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 his informal brief, we
conclude that Mann 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 of 2 --