US v. Edward Okun

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00132-REP-1,3:13-cv-00230-REP. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999799928]. Mailed to: Edward Okun. [15-7840]

Appeal: 15-7840

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD HUGH OKUN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00132-REP-1; 3:13-cv-00230-REP)

Submitted:

April 19, 2016

Decided:

April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Hugh Okun, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richard Daniel Cooke, Michael Steven
Dry, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7840

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

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
Okun 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: 15-7840

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 04/21/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3