United States v. Oloyede Johnson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit February 6, 2024

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6892 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

No. 23-6892

Plaintiff - Appellee,

OLOYEDE JOHNSON, a/k/a Johnson Oloyede, a/k/a Little Black,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-JKB-4)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oloyede Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6892 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

Oloyede Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion as untimely and denying Johnson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

reconsideration. The orders are 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 demonstrating 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 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,

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 Johnson 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.