Court Opinion

ID: 9401754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 21:00:53.781002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.056878
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6955      Doc: 18         Filed: 06/12/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-6955

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHELLE RENEE BEST, a/k/a Michelle Smith,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cr-00147-MSD-LRL-1; 2:20-cv-
        00138-MSD-LRL)

        Submitted: August 31, 2022                                        Decided: June 12, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jeremy Brian Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6955         Doc: 18       Filed: 06/12/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michelle Renee Best seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her

        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 Best has not made

        the requisite showing. ∗ 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

               ∗
                 We limit our review of the record to the issues raised in Best’s informal brief. 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.”).

                                                      2