Opinion
22-6430
09-13-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NORMAN KENNEDY BAYNARD, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Norman Kennedy Baynard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Emily Rebecca Gantt, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 8, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cr-00136-MSD-LRL-1; 2:20-cv-00297-MSD)
Norman Kennedy Baynard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Emily Rebecca Gantt, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Norman Kennedy Baynard, Jr., 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)(A). 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, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 petition 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)).
Although Baynard's notice of appeal designates the district court's order denying relief on his § 2255 motion, he suggests in his informal brief and supplemental informal brief that his appeal is from the November 2016 criminal judgment. But we previously dismissed Baynard's direct appeal from the criminal judgment. United States v. Baynard, No. 16-4809 (4th Cir. July 21, 2017) (unpublished order).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Baynard's informal brief and supplemental informal brief, we conclude that Baynard 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.
To the extent that Baynard's informal brief and supplemental informal brief raise claims that he did not allege in his § 2255 motion, we decline to consider those claims. See Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C., 35 F.4th 917, 928 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining circumstances in which we will consider issues raised for first time on appeal in civil case).
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