Opinion
22-6221
08-23-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
ANDREW SMITH, APPELLANT PRO SE. JEREMY RAYMOND SANDERS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR APPELLEE.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 18, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00082-RJC-DSC-1; 3:21-cv-00659-RJC)
ANDREW SMITH, APPELLANT PRO SE.
JEREMY RAYMOND SANDERS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR APPELLEE.
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Andrew Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. [ *] 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, as here, 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 Smith's informal brief, we conclude that Smith 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
[*] To the extent that Smith seeks to appeal the district court's November 23, 2021, order denying his initial § 2255 motion, we lack jurisdiction to review that order because the notice of appeal was not timely filed within 60 days after entry of that order. See Fed. R. App P. 4(a)(1)(B); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (holding that "timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement").