UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NORMAN KENNEDY BAYNARD, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cr-00136-MSD-LRL-1; 2:20-cv00297-MSD)

Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 13, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Kennedy Baynard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Emily Rebecca Gantt, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6430 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/13/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Norman Kennedy Baynard, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

1

 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 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, 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 Baynard’s informal brief

and supplemental informal brief, we conclude that Baynard has not made the requisite 

showing.2

 See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 

1 Although Baynard’s notice of appeal designates the district court’s order denying 

relief on his § 2255 motion, he suggests in his informal brief and supplemental informal 

brief that his appeal is from the November 2016 criminal judgment. But we previously

dismissed Baynard’s direct appeal from the criminal judgment. United States v. Baynard, 

No. 16-4809 (4th Cir. July 21, 2017) (unpublished order).

2 To the extent that Baynard’s informal brief and supplemental informal brief raise 

claims that he did not allege in his § 2255 motion, we decline to consider those claims. See

(Continued)

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6430 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/13/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 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

Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C., 35 F.4th 917, 928 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining 

circumstances in which we will consider issues raised for first time on appeal in civil case).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6430 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/13/2022 Pg: 3 of 3