Court Opinion

ID: 9930923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:01:17.506259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:59.045121
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7009      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7009

        KENNETH OTENG DUODU,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICH DOTSON,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00410-AWA-LRL)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Oteng Duodu, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7009         Doc: 9       Filed: 02/06/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Oteng Duodu seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Duodu’s 28 U.S.C. § 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

        standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

        of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (2017). When 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 Duodu has not made

        the requisite showing. See Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619-21 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding

        that Vienna Convention claims must first be presented to state court to satisfy exhaustion

        of state court remedies). 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