USCA4 Appeal: 23-6614 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/20/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6614

MILTON E. LANCASTER

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID MILLIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-hc-02137-D)

Submitted: August 28, 2024 Decided: September 20, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton E. Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6614 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/20/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Milton E. Lancaster seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

petition. * 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 Lancaster’s informal brief

and supplements thereto, we conclude that Lancaster 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

* Lancaster’s notice of appeal and informal brief state that he also seeks to appeal the district court’s March 1, 2023, order denying his motions to appoint counsel and to compel the production of transcripts. But Lancaster’s informal brief does not explain how the district court erred in denying those motions. And in any event, we discern no error in the district court’s March 1 order.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6614 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/20/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

dismiss the appeal. We also deny Lancaster’s motion for the appointment of counsel and

for the production of pretrial transcripts.

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

3