USCA4 Appeal: 23-6773 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6773

SARAH ELIZABETH FLANDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00439-AJT-JFA)

Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sarah Elizabeth Flanders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6773 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Sarah Elizabeth Flanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her

petition on procedural grounds. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A). 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 petition 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 Flanders’ informal brief,

we conclude that Flanders 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