United States of America v. Bernard Celestine, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6683
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BERNARD CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-D-9; 4:23-cv-00138-D)
Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 28, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Celestine, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Celestine appeals the district court’s order denying the most recent motions
Celestine filed in his criminal action, including a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, a motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a)(1)(A), and a motion for sentence
reduction under the First Step Act. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the informal brief. 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.”).
To the extent Celestine seeks to appeal that portion of the district court’s order
dismissing his § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, 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, as here, 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)). As Celestine does not challenge the district
court’s dismissal of the § 2255 motion in his informal brief, he has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal, in
part.
As to the remainder of the appealed order, we have reviewed the record in
conjunction with the issues Celestine raises on appeal and find no reversible error.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of district court’s order. United States v. Celestine,
Nos. 4:95-cr-00041-D-9; 4:23-cv-00138-D (E.D.N.C. July 28, 2025). 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --