Court Opinion

ID: 9397971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:27.596229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.497741
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7363      Doc: 13         Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7363

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RODRICK BERKLERY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:17-cr-00469-RBH-3; 4:22-cv-00486-RBH)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                            Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rodrick Berklery, Appellant Pro Se. Cate Cardinale, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7363      Doc: 13         Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rodrick Berklery seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).

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

        we conclude that he 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