UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6888
VICTOR ANGEL TORRES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:16-cv-00372-RDB)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Victor Angel Torres, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Angel Torres seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
By failing to challenge the district court’s dispositive
holdings in his informal brief, Torres has waived his right to
challenge the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Our independent review of the record nonetheless confirms the
district court’s dispositive holdings. Accordingly, we deny
2
Torres’ 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
3