Court Opinion

ID: 9381455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:06.992722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.829711
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7216     Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 22-7215

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL IBUKUN OGINNI,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

                                             No. 22-7216

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL IBUKUN OGINNI,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cr-00231-LO-1; 1:20-cv-01596-
        LO; 1:17-cr-00172-LO-1; 1:20-cv-01598-LO)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                   Decided: March 21, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7216      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Ibukun Oginni, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7216         Doc: 9       Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael Ibukun Oginni seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

        issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 motion 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 Oginni has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the

        appeals. 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

                                                      3