USCA4 Appeal: 24-7030 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BEHROUZ MOKHTARI, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 24-7031

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BEHROUZ MOKHTARI, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:22-cr-00391-LKG-1; 8:24-cv-00153-LKG; 8:21- cr-00480-LKG-2; 8:24-cv-00152-LKG)

Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 29, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7030 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Behrouz Mokhtari, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7030 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Behrouz Mokhtari 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 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 Mokhtari has not made the requisite showing. ∗ Accordingly, we deny Mokhtari’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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

∗ We decline to consider the new claim raised for the first time in the informal brief.

See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).