Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07383/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07383-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Khem Un
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KHEM UN, a/k/a Khem Roeutanck Un,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:10-cr-00446-LO-1; 1:14-cv-00462-LO)

Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: April 28, 2016

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khem Un, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Scott Andrew Claffee, 

Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Mary Katherine Barr 

Daly, Assistant United States Attorney, Kellen Sean Dwyer, Adam 

Ptashkin, Michael R. Tregle, Anna A. Vlasova, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7383 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Khem Un seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

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. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Un 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

Appeal: 15-7383 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7383 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3