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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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