USCA4 Appeal: 23-7030 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MALIEK KEARNEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00486-GLR-1; 1:21-cv-03149-GLR)

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

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maliek Kearney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7030 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Maliek Kearney seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

motion and denying reconsideration. ∗ The orders are 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,

, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Kearney’s informal brief,

we conclude that Kearney has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);

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 Kearney’s motion for preparation of the record on appeal,

deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

∗ Although the district court improperly construed Kearney’s timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion, see Banister v. Davis,

(2020), this error does not affect the resolution of this appeal.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7030 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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