United States v. Mark Andrews

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-6021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK LEON ANDREWS,

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-00208-D-1; 5:23-cv-00263-D)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Leon Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Mark Leon Andrews seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The 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). 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.

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 Andrews’ informal brief,

we conclude that he 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 Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating “this court does not

consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances”

(cleaned up)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 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