Bernard Celestine, proceeding pro se, appealed a district court order that denied his most recent motions in his criminal action. These motions included a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, a request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a)(1)(A), and a motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act. The district court had dismissed the § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, while denying the other relief requests. Celestine filed an informal brief to appeal these decisions, but the scope of his appeal was limited by the specific procedural rules governing pro se filings in the Fourth Circuit.
The court began by establishing the scope of its review, noting that under Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b), the court is confined to the issues raised in the informal brief. The opinion addresses the appeal regarding the dismissal of the § 2255 motion as successive. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), an appeal from a district court's denial of a certificate of appealability is not permitted unless a circuit justice or judge issues such a certificate. A certificate will only issue if the applicant makes a 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.' The court cited Gonzalez v. Thaler, explaining that when a district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the procedural ruling is debatable and that the underlying motion states a debatable claim of a constitutional right. The court found that Celestine failed to challenge the district court's dismissal of the § 2255 motion in his informal brief. Because he did not contest the procedural ruling, he could not make the requisite showing. Consequently, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed that portion of the appeal. Regarding the remaining issues—the compassionate release and First Step Act motions—the court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, leading to an affirmation of the district court's order on those points.
The district court's order denying Celestine's motions remains in full effect. Celestine is barred from appealing the dismissal of his successive § 2255 claim unless he can secure a certificate of appealability from a circuit justice or judge, a high bar that requires a substantial showing of a constitutional right denial. The decision reinforces the strict procedural requirement that pro se appellants must explicitly raise all issues in their informal briefs to preserve them for appellate review.