Court Opinion

ID: 9941859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-17 21:00:34.523914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:12.055111
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7080     Doc: 61         Filed: 02/16/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7080

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RAYMOND IDEMUDIA AIGBEKAEN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 23-6093

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RAYMOND IDEMUDIA AIGBEKAEN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00462-JKB-2; 1:21-cv-01259-JKB)

        Submitted: January 18, 2024                                 Decided: February 16, 2024
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7080      Doc: 61         Filed: 02/16/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raymond Idemudia Aigbekaen, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Fitzgerald Aubin, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
        Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7080       Doc: 61         Filed: 02/16/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Raymond Idemudia Aigbekaen seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying

        relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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 Aigbekaen has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Aigbekaen’s motion for a certificate

        of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny all pending motions. 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