UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6802


GREGORY COOPER,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

KATY POOLE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                    Respondent - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cv-00496-WO-JLW)


Submitted: August 20, 2019                                        Decided: August 23, 2019


Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory Cooper, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Gregory Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. See 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.

See Buck v. Davis, 

, 773-74 (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, 

, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).

       Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Cooper’s informal brief,

we conclude that Cooper has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see

also Jackson v. Lightsey, 

, 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, deny leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the




                                             2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                              DISMISSED




                                            3