Court Opinion

ID: 9909673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 21:00:33.892336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:16.713599
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7474      Doc: 20         Filed: 12/12/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7474

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MOHAMMED KWANING, a/k/a Kofi,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00600-GLR-2; 1:22-cv-02041-GLR)

        Submitted: December 8, 2023                                 Decided: December 12, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mohammed Kwaning, Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7474      Doc: 20         Filed: 12/12/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mohammed Kwaning 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 showing 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 show 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 Kwaning has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the

        pending motion as moot, 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