UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHENNOR MARLEY BAH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00058-LO-1; 1:18-cv-01386-LO)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 24, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chennor Marley Bah, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Catherine Harp, Special Assistant United States Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Chennor Marley Bah seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

(2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B) (2018). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

See Buck v. Davis,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bah 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