UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERNEST RAYMOND ROBERTS, a/k/a Balla Walla, a/k/a Balowala,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00178-MGL-1; 1:19-cv-00621-MGL)

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Raymond Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Ernest Raymond Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his

(2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B) (2018). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

See Buck v. Davis,

(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,

, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel,

(2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Roberts’ informal brief, we

conclude that Roberts has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also

Jackson v. Lightsey,

(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