United States of America v. Gurbir Singh Grewal, a/k/a Gavin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6616
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GURBIR SINGH GREWAL, a/k/a Gavin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00491-D-1; 5:23-cv-00301-D)
Submitted: August 29, 2025 Decided: October 27, 2025
Before AGEE, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gurbir Singh Grewal, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gurbir Singh Grewal seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We previously remanded to the district court for a determination
of whether Grewal satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) to reopen the appeal
period. United States v. Grewal, No. 24-6616, 2024 WL 4512072 (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024).
The district court reopened the appeal period, so we have jurisdiction over this appeal.*
The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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).
On appeal, we limit our review to the issues that Grewal raised in the district court
and that he also raises in his informal brief. See Milla v. Brown, 109 F.4th 222, 234 (4th
Cir. 2024) (“Issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent
exceptional circumstances.”); see also 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,
* On remand, the district court reopened the appeal period in accordance with Rule
4(a)(6) and directed Grewal to refile his notice of appeal with 14 days after entry of its
order. Grewal failed to refile his notice of appeal by the district court’s deadline. However,
the Supreme Court recently held in Parrish v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1664, 1675 (2025),
that Rule 4(a)(6) does not require the filing of a new notice of appeal after the reopening
of the appeal period. Accordingly, Grewal’s initial notice of appeal confers jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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.”). We have independently
reviewed the record and the issues Grewal preserved, and we conclude that Grewal has not
made the requisite showing. 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

-- 3 of 3 --