UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COURTNEY EMANUEL GOODING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00108-FL-2, 4:16-cv-00186-FL)

Submitted: March 18, 2021 Decided: March 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Courtney Emanuel Gooding, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Courtney Emanuel Gooding seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his

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

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of

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

right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

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

we conclude that Gooding 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