Case ID: f-appx_523/html/0225-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Languan BRAME, a/k/a Ant, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-6126.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 30, 2013.
    Decided: June 5, 2013.
    
      Anthony Languan Brame, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, Shailika K. Shah, Office of the United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Languan Brame seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certifícate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

In his informal brief, Brame has failed to address the district court’s reasons for denying his motion. Therefore, Brame has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s rulings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability, deny the pending motions to expand or amend the record, 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.