US v. Oluwasegun Ogun

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00004-RBS-TEM-1,4:17-cv-00051-RBS,4:17-cv-00052-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000145730]. Mailed to: Oluwasegun Ogun. [17-6773]

Appeal: 17-6773

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/29/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6773

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OLUWASEGUN OGUN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00004-RBS-TEM1; 4:17-cv-00051-RBS; 4:17-cv-00052-RBS)

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oluwasegun Ogun, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Eric Matthew Hurt,
Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys, Amy Elizabeth Cross, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew Lamont Creighton, Rachel E. Timm, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6773

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/29/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Oluwasegun Ogun seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion
challenging his criminal judgment as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it
as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at
484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ogun has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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