Case Information
*2 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
No. 24-6259, dismissed; No. 24-6689, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Laurence Sessum, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Laurence Sessum seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his Fed. R. App. P. 10(e) motion to amend or correct the record. The order denying Sessum’s § 2255 motion is 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)). Limiting our review to the issues raised in Sessum’s informal brief, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sessum has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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.”).
Sessum’s challenge to the denial of his motion to amend or correct the record is not subject to the requirement for a certificate of appealability. See Harbison v. Bell , 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error as to the denial of that motion. Accordingly, we deny Sessum’s motions for a certificate of *4 appealability and for bail or release pending appeal, dismiss the appeal in No. 24-6259, and affirm the denial of Sessum’s Fed. R. App. P. 10(e) motion in No. 24-6689.
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.
No. 24-6259, DISMISSED No. 24-6689, AFFIRMED