USCA4 Appeal: 22-6561 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDRES ALEXANDER VELASQUEZ GUEVARA, a/k/a Pechada,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00209-LO-8; 1:21-cv-01190- LO)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andres Alexander Velasquez Guevara, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6561 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Andres Alexander Velasquez Guevara 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 Velasquez Guevara’s

informal brief, we conclude that Velasquez Guevara 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