Milton E. Lancaster v. David Millis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6614
MILTON E. LANCASTER
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID MILLIS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-hc-02137-D)
Submitted: August 28, 2024 Decided: September 20, 2024
Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton E. Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Milton E. Lancaster seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.* 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, 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 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 Lancaster’s informal brief
and supplements thereto, we conclude that Lancaster 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.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
* Lancaster’s notice of appeal and informal brief state that he also seeks to appeal
the district court’s March 1, 2023, order denying his motions to appoint counsel and to
compel the production of transcripts. But Lancaster’s informal brief does not explain how
the district court erred in denying those motions. And in any event, we discern no error in
the district court’s March 1 order.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Lancaster’s motion for the appointment of counsel and
for the production of pretrial transcripts.
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 --