Court Opinion

ID: 9930905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:00:57.295402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:36.470453
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6892      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6892

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        OLOYEDE JOHNSON, a/k/a Johnson Oloyede, a/k/a Little Black,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-JKB-4)

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

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Oloyede Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6892         Doc: 8      Filed: 02/06/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

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

        § 2255 motion as untimely and denying Johnson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

        reconsideration. The orders are 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 Johnson 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