Court Opinion

ID: 9352562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 21:00:31.92231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:44.596276
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6871      Doc: 11         Filed: 01/05/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6871

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JOHNSON B. OGUNLANA,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00285-CCB-1)

        Submitted: December 27, 2022                                      Decided: January 5, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Johnson B. Ogunlana, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6871       Doc: 11         Filed: 01/05/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Johnson B. Ogunlana appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for

        sentencing credit while on pretrial release and his release on bond pending a decision in

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error

        in the court’s denial of Ogunlana’s motion for sentencing credit. Accordingly, we affirm.

               That part of the district court’s order denying Ogunlana’s motion for release on bond

        pending a decision in his § 2255 motion 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Ogunlana has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we affirm in part and deny a certificate of

        appealability and dismiss in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6871      Doc: 11        Filed: 01/05/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid the decisional process.

                                                    AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    3