USCA4 Appeal: 22-6650 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BERNARD TIMOTHY TOBIAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00007-TLW-1; 3:19-cv- 02072-TLW)

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Timothy Tobias, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6650 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Timothy Tobias 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 Tobias’ informal and

supplemental informal briefs, we conclude that Tobias 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