Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07918/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07918-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David M. Kissi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7918

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID M. KISSI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (8:05-cr-00254-PWG-1; 8:12-cv-01944-AW)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Kristi Noel O’Malley, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7918 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David M. Kissi seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying motion to reopen his closed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

proceeding. 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 

Kissi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Kissi’s motion to appoint 

counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Kissi’s motion to 

waive the prefiling injunction as it does not apply to this 

proceeding. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

Appeal: 15-7918 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7918 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3