Fourth Circuit dismisses §2255 appeal, Holt v. USA

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6474

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

BRENDAN JAMAL HOLT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00102-CCE-1; 1:22-cv- 00668-CCE-LPA) Submitted: March 6, 2026 Decided: March 30, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brendan Jamal Holt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Brendan Jamal Holt seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Holt’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order 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)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holt 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