United States v. Justin Milam ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6881 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/05/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6881
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN COLE MILAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00265-FL-1; 5:20-cv-00079-FL)
Submitted: July 20, 2022 Decided: August 5, 2022
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborrah Lynn Newton, NEWTON LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6881 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/05/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Justin Cole Milam, through counsel, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Milam’s 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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 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).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Milam’s informal brief, we
conclude that Milam 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 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