USCA4 Appeal: 23-6451 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TANNER MOREN EAGLE LARCH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00146-MR-WCM -1; 1:23- cv-00049-MR)

Submitted: August 15, 2024 Decided: September 17, 2024

Before THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tanner Moren Eagle Larch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6451 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Tanner Moren Eagle Larch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Larch’s informal brief, we conclude that Larch has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Larch has not demonstrated that jurists of reason could find debatable the district court’s denial of relief on his challenges to the constitutionality of his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) convictions and his term of supervised release. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Larch’s motion without issuing an order to show

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6451 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

cause to the Government, conducting an evidentiary hearing, and appointing counsel for Larch.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Larch’s motion to vacate and remand for further proceedings and deny as moot his motion to remove this appeal from abeyance. 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