USCA4 Appeal: 22-7474 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/12/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7474

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MOHAMMED KWANING, a/k/a Kofi,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00600-GLR-2; 1:22-cv-02041-GLR)

Submitted: December 8, 2023 Decided: December 12, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mohammed Kwaning, Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7474 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/12/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mohammed Kwaning seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of

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

right.”

(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists could 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 show 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 Kwaning has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the

pending motion as moot, 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