Lorence F. Smith, Ii v. WARDEN, FCI Bennettsville

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6552
LORENCE F. SMITH, II,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI Bennettsville,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:22-cv-03340-JRR)
Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorence F. Smith, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lorence F. Smith, II, 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 Smith’s informal brief, we
conclude that Smith 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, although we grant Smith’s motion to supplement his request for a
certificate of appealability, 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 --