UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 7884

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MIKLE ANTHONY BUTLER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. ( 4:17

- cr - 00468

- RBH

- 1 ; 4:19

- cv - 00849

- RBH )

Submitted : July 29, 2022 Decided: September 30, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Mikle Anthony Butler , Appellant Pro Se. Everett E. McMillian, Assistant U nited States Attorne y, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-7884 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Mikle Anthony Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 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 c ould 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a co nstitutional right.
Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Butler has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, although we grant Butler’s August 12, 2022, and August 19, 2022, motion s to supplement his informal brief, we deny a certificate of

* We decline to consider Butler’s challenges to the indictment and the sufficiency of the guilty plea colloquy under Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) , which he pursues for the first time on appeal despite Rehaif issuing about one week before Butler mailed his response to the Government’s opposition to his § 2255 motion and about five months before the district c ourt entered its order dismissing Butler’s § 2255 motion

. See Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C. , 35 F.4th 917, 928 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining circumstances in which we will consider issue raised for first time on appeal in civil case)

. We have considered Butler’s actual innocence claim in light of Rehaif , however, and we are satisfied that he is not entitled to a certificate of app ealability on that claim. USCA4 Appeal: 19-7884 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also grant Butler’s September 15, 2022, motion

to disregard his Aug ust 25, 2022, motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2255(h) , and treat the August 25 motion as withdrawn

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 19-7884 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 3 of 3