United States v. Mohammed Kwaning ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
2