USCA4 Appeal: 23-6884 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6884

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AMANZE ANTOINE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00017-TSK-MJA-1; 1:22- cv-00145-TSK)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amanze Antoine, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6884 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Amanze Antoine seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Antoine’s

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 Antoine’s informal brief,

we conclude that Antoine 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