United States of America v. Norman Kennedy Baynard, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6430
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NORMAN KENNEDY BAYNARD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cr-00136-MSD-LRL-1; 2:20-cv-
00297-MSD)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 13, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Kennedy Baynard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Emily Rebecca Gantt, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Norman Kennedy Baynard, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.1 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 of the record to the issues raised in Baynard’s informal brief
and supplemental informal brief, we conclude that Baynard has not made the requisite
showing.2 See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir.
1 Although Baynard’s notice of appeal designates the district court’s order denying
relief on his § 2255 motion, he suggests in his informal brief and supplemental informal
brief that his appeal is from the November 2016 criminal judgment. But we previously
dismissed Baynard’s direct appeal from the criminal judgment. United States v. Baynard,
No. 16-4809 (4th Cir. July 21, 2017) (unpublished order).
2 To the extent that Baynard’s informal brief and supplemental informal brief raise
claims that he did not allege in his § 2255 motion, we decline to consider those claims. See
(Continued)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 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
Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C., 35 F.4th 917, 928 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining
circumstances in which we will consider issues raised for first time on appeal in civil case).

-- 3 of 3 --