Maria D. Garibay v. BEAUFORT COUNTY COURT SHERIFF; BIANCA HARRIS, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7658
MARIA D. GARIBAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BEAUFORT COUNTY COURT SHERIFF; BIANCA HARRIS, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-2239-BO)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maria D. Garibay, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Maria D. Garibay seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
In her informal brief, Garibay has failed to address
the district court’s dispositive timeliness analysis.
Therefore, Garibay has forfeited appellate review of the
district court’s ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --