Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06125/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Olanitan Michael Olaniyi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OLANITAN MICHAEL OLANIYI, a/k/a Richard Allman, a/k/a Thomas 

Duval, a/k/a Gabriel Palmer, a/k/a Michael Salman, a/k/a 

Michael Stanley,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, 

Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00072-BR-1; 4:15-cv-00071-BR)

Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Olanitan Michael Olaniyi, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey 

West, Assistant United States Attorney, Susan Beth Menzer, Seth 

Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6125 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Olanitan Michael Olaniyi 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 

Olaniyi 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: 16-6125 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/25/2016 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: 16-6125 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/25/2016 Pg: 3 of 3