UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BYRON MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge; Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cr-
00525-PJM-1; 8:13-cv-01551-PJM)
Submitted: April 17, 2015 Decided: April 24, 2015
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Byron Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Sujit
Raman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Byron Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. * The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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
*
To the extent Mitchell also seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, he has
forfeited appellate review of that order by failing to challenge
in his informal appellate brief the reasons for the denial. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b).
2