Court Opinion

ID: 9930904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:00:56.202129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:36.667129
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6807      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6807

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RODERICK LAMAR SANFORD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00193-WO-1; 1:20-cv-
        00539-WO-LPA)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Roderick Lamar Sanford, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6807         Doc: 8      Filed: 02/06/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Roderick Lamar Sanford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Sanford’s 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (2017).

               On appeal, Sanford seeks to challenge the district court’s rejection of several of his

        claims that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Limiting our review of

        the record to the issues raised in Sanford’s informal brief, we conclude that reasonable

        jurists could not debate the court’s resolution of these claims. 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