USCA4 Appeal: 21-7417 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/09/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NAEEM LATEEF ODUMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00046-AWA-LRL-1; 2:20-cv- 00033-AWA)

Submitted: October 3, 2022 Decided: November 9, 2022

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Naeem Lateef Odums, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7417 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/09/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Naeem Lateef Odums 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,

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

(2000)).

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

conclude that Odums 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