Court Opinion

ID: 7375034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-28 23:09:29.288638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:21:05.950253
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7182      Doc: 6         Filed: 12/27/2021    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7182

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        STERLING WHITAKER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:19-cr-00129-BO-2; 7:21-cv-00033-
        BO)

        Submitted: December 21, 2021                                Decided: December 27, 2021

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sterling Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7182         Doc: 6       Filed: 12/27/2021      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Sterling Whitaker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

        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)).

               Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Whitaker’s informal brief,

        we conclude that Whitaker has not made the requisite showing. See 4th 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 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

                                                      2