UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6549

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAWN SADLER, a/k/a Tangulifu M. Barber, a/k/a Carlos Watts,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:04-cr-00330-CMC-5; 3:10-cv-70219-CMC)

Submitted: October 31, 2011 Decided: November 4, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Sadler seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. 

Sadler claims appellate counsel was ineffective for 

failing to notify him of his right to file a petition for writ 

of certiorari after receiving an adverse decision from this 

court on direct appeal. This court’s Plan adopted pursuant to 

the Criminal Justice Act provides that every attorney who 

represents a defendant on direct criminal appeal shall continue 
3

to represent the defendant until relieved by this court or the 

Supreme Court. Further,

If the judgment of this court is adverse to the 

defendant, counsel shall inform the defendant, in 

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court 

for a writ of certiorari. If the defendant, in 

writing, so requests and in counsel’s considered 

judgment there are grounds for seeking Supreme Court 

review, counsel shall prepare and file a timely 

petition for such a writ and transmit a copy to the 

defendant. Thereafter, unless otherwise instructed by 

the Supreme Court or its clerk . . . counsel shall 

take whatever further steps are necessary to protect 

the rights of the defendant, until the petition is 

granted or denied.

If the appellant requests that a petition for writ of 

certiorari be filed but counsel believes that such a 

petition would be frivolous, counsel may file a motion 

to withdraw with this court wherein counsel requests 

to be relieved of the responsibility of filing a 

petition for writ of certiorari.

Plan In Implementation of the Criminal Justice Act, Part V, § 2. 

Sadler’s counsel on direct appeal did not file a 

petition for writ of certiorari, nor did he seek permission for 

leave to withdraw from further representation. The record is 

unclear as to whether Sadler’s counsel informed him of his right 

to petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. We 

therefore grant a certificate of appealability on this issue and 

remand for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to 

make factual findings regarding whether counsel complied with 
4

his obligations under the CJA.*

 The record, as supplemented, 

shall be returned to this court for further proceedings. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED

 * We have not yet considered the remaining claims raised by 

Sadler. Those claims will be addressed when the case is 

returned to this court following the limited remand.