Court Opinion

ID: 9365128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:27.114552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.297387
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7036      Doc: 12         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7036

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KIM LEIGHTON MCBRIDE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00132-JAG-EWH-1;
        3:19-cv-00533-JAG)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kim Leighton McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Jin Ah Lee, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7036         Doc: 12       Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kim Leighton McBride seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The orders are 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, 115-16 (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 McBride’s informal brief,

        we conclude that McBride 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