Larry Tyrone Williams v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6267
LARRY TYRONE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00172-DJN-MRC)
Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023
Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Tyrone Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Tyrone Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 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 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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, 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 Williams’ informal brief,
we conclude that Williams 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 Williams’ motion for 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 --