UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7405

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KWAMANE MONTE EVERETT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 4:12

- cr - 00057

- D

- 4; 4:16

- cv - 00095

- D )

Submitted : November 6, 2020 Decided: November 17, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Kwamane Monte Everett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kwamane Monte Everett appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion and denying his pro se motions in which he argue d that he should receive credit against his sentence for time he spent in state custody before the district court imposed judgment in this case . The portion of the district court’s order denying relief on Everett’s § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ) (201 8 ). 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) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims d ebatable 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 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 Everett ’s informal brief , we conclude that Everett has not made the requisite showing. See 4t h Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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. ” )

. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of a ppealability and dismiss Everett’s appeal3 of the district court’s order denying relief under § 2255 for the reasons stated by the district
court

. With respect to Everett’s challenges to the execution of his sentence, w e have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly denied those motions for lack of jurisdiction. See Fontanez v. O'Brien , 807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015) (“As a general matter, a federal prisoner must challenge the execution of a s entence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and the sentence itself under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .” )

. We therefore affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in t he materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART , AFFIRMED IN PART