USCA4 Appeal: 24-6632 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6632

MARIO ANTON LEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, U.S.P. Hazelton,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00180-GMG)

Submitted: October 9, 2024 Decided: October 18, 2024

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Anton Lee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6632 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Mario Anton Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on a pleading

we have previously construed as Lee’s

motion. * See Lee v. Warden, No.

21-7223,

, at *1 (4th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021). 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 Lee’s informal brief, we

conclude that Lee has not made the requisite showing, as he fails to challenge the district

court’s dispositive finding that his Rule 60(b) motion was untimely. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);

* Lee identified his original filing as a

petition but, because Lee challenged the legality of his sentence, we construed Lee’s petition as a

motion. See Fontanez v. O’Brien,

(4th Cir. 2015) (“As a general matter, a federal prisoner must challenge the execution of a sentence under

, and the sentence itself under

.”).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6632 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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

3