Brandon Lee v. Erik Hooks ( 2021 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7180 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7180
BRANDON JAMES LEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary, NC Department of Public Safety; DENISE JACKSON,
Warden, Central Prison,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02067-BO)
Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon James Lee, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7180 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon James Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 petition 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)).
Limiting our review to the issues raised in Lee’s informal brief, we conclude that
Lee has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775
F.3d 170, 177 (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 Lee’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as
unnecessary Lee’s motion for leave to use the district court’s record. 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