US v. Khem Un

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00446-LO-1,1:14-cv-00462-LO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999806785]. Mailed to: Khem Un FCI RAY BROOK FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 900 Ray Brook, NY 12977-0000 Michael R. Tregle Anna A. Vlasova. [15-7383]

Appeal: 15-7383

Doc: 12

Filed: 04/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KHEM UN, a/k/a Khem Roeutanck Un,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00446-LO-1; 1:14-cv-00462-LO)

Submitted:

January 29, 2016

Decided:

April 28, 2016

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khem Un, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Scott Andrew Claffee,
Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Mary Katherine Barr
Daly, Assistant United States Attorney, Kellen Sean Dwyer, Adam
Ptashkin, Michael R. Tregle, Anna A. Vlasova, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7383

Doc: 12

Filed: 04/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Khem Un seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The order is not

appealable

judge

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Un has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7383

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 04/28/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3