UNPUBLISHED

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mikle Anthony Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Everett E. McMillian, Assistant United States

Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mikle Anthony Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 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 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 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)). 

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, motions 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 court 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 appealability on that claim.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7884 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also grant Butler’s September 15, 2022, motion 

to disregard his August 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 argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7884 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 3 of 3