United States of America v. Andre Marquis Mitchell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDRE MARQUIS MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:22-cr-00057-RBS-RJK-1; 2:23-
cv-00612-RBS)
Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025
Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andre Marquis Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andre Marquis Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. 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, 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 Mitchell 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

-- 2 of 2 --