Court Opinion

ID: 9382276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:31.216393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.122665
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6012      Doc: 21         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6012

        PETER GAKUBA,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00237-TDC)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Peter Gakuba, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6012         Doc: 21      Filed: 03/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Peter Gakuba seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable

        unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

        § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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, as here, the district

        court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the

        dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of

        the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

        Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gakuba 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 contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                     2