Court Opinion

ID: 9375206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:20.967341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.801449
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6925      Doc: 5        Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6925

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL LAWRENCE MAYNES, JR., a/k/a Kamile Jones, a/k/a Mac Mill, a/k/a
        Horseblock, Jr.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00336-LO-1; 1:19-cv-00499-
        LO)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Lawrence Maynes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6925      Doc: 5         Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael Lawrence Maynes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

        relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion

        for compassionate release. * The portion of the order denying relief on Maynes’ 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (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 Maynes 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

               *
                  In his informal brief, Maynes does not address the district court’s denial of his
        motion for compassionate release. Maynes has therefore forfeited appellate review of the
        district court’s denial of that motion. 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
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6925         Doc: 5    Filed: 02/24/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED

                                                  3