Albert G. Gurkin, Sr. v. Barney Owens; North Carolina Department of Public Safety

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7648
ALBERT G. GURKIN, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BARNEY OWENS; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02069-D)
Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022
Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert G. Gurkin, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Albert G. Gurkin, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition 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 Gurkin’s informal brief, we
conclude that Gurkin 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 --