USCA4 Appeal: 24-7018 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE MARQUIS MITCHELL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:22-cr-00057-RBS-RJK-1; 2:23- cv-00612-RBS)

Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre Marquis Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7018 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Andre Marquis Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mitchell has not made the requisite showing. 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