United States v. Arawole

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Arawole, 91 F. App'x 288 (4th Cir. 2004)

United States v. Arawole

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALANI OLUSEGUN ARAWOLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-283-L, CA-00-66-BEL)

Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 31, 2004

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alani Olusegun Arawole, Appellant Pro Se. Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Alani Olusegun Arawole, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition

filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the

district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 338

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 684

(4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Arawole

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant the

motion to file an amended informal brief, 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -

Reference

Status
Unpublished