United States v. Nykeem Odom

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6750 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6750

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NYKEEM TAYQUAN ODOM, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00149-D-1; 5:23-cv-00746-D)

Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 24, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nykeem Tayquan Odom, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6750 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Nykeem Tayquan Odom 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)).

Here, the district court summarily adopted the reasoning in the Government’s memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss, offering no independent explanation for dismissing Odom’s § 2255 motion. Although the district court should have enumerated the issues Odom raised and explained its reasons for denying relief, see United States v. Marr, 856 F.2d 1471, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 1998), we are able to conclude through our independent review of the record that Odom has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6750 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 3 of 3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED