USCA4 Appeal: 23-6807 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6807

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODERICK LAMAR SANFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00193-WO-1; 1:20-cv- 00539-WO-LPA)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick Lamar Sanford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6807 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Roderick Lamar Sanford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Sanford’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).

On appeal, Sanford seeks to challenge the district court’s rejection of several of his

claims that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Limiting our review of

the record to the issues raised in Sanford’s informal brief, we conclude that reasonable

jurists could not debate the court’s resolution of these claims. 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