George Schuppan v. Beth Cabell

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6329 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6329 GEORGE ZACHARY SCHUPPAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BETH CABELL, Warden, Sussex II State Prison; CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:22-cv-00733-EKD-JCH) Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: November 21, 2025 Before HARRIS, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Brickhill, David Paul Mitchel, MICHAEL J. BRICKHILL, PC, Appomattox, Virginia, for Appellant. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6329 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: George Zachary Schuppan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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). 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, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Schuppan’s counseled informal brief, we conclude that Schuppan has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”); see also United States v. Fernandez Sanchez, 46 F.4th 211, 219 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A] party . . . waives an issue by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6329 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 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