United States of America v. Barry Jamel Alexander, a/k/a Manny

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARRY JAMEL ALEXANDER, a/k/a Manny,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00005-RBS-LRL-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2021 Decided: September 14, 2021
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barry Jamel Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Jacqueline Romy Bechara, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Barry Jamel Alexander seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The orders are 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, 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 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 of the record to the issues raised in Alexander’s 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.”), we have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Alexander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --