UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6286
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ADEWALE JOHNSON ALADEKOBA, a/k/a Jay Johnson, a/k/a Orlando
Percival McGregory, a/k/a Wally,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:93-cr-00018-WMN-3; 1:12-cv-000924-WMN)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adewale Johnson Aladekoba, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure
Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adewale Johnson Aladekoba seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to reconsider its order denying
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion as successive
and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Aladekoba has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Aladekoba’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
2
successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
based on either:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). Aladekoba’s claims do
not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
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
3