FILED: September 13, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
________________
No. 13-237
________________
In re: DAVID M. KISSI,
Petitioner.
________________
No. 13-6879
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID M. KISSI,
Defendant – Appellant.
O R D E R
The Court amends its opinion filed today, as follows:
"September 13, 2013," is added to the cover sheet as
the "Decided" date.
For the Court – By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-237
IN RE: DAVID M. KISSI,
Petitioner.
No. 13-6879
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID M. KISSI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:05-cr-00254-AW-1; 8:12-cv-01944-AW)
Submitted: August 28, 2013 Decided: September 13, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Biran, BIRAN KELLY
LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Kristi Noel O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, David M. Kissi seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion and his motion for
reconsideration. The orders are 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 Kissi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We
deny Kissi’s motion for bail or release pending appeal as we
find he has not presented a substantial question of law or fact
justifying his release. See United States v. Steinhorn, 927
3
F.2d 195, 196 (4th Cir. 1991). We also grant Kissi’s motions to
supplement his informal brief and to accept pro se briefs, deny
as unnecessary his motion for permission to file these appeals,
and deny his motion to appoint counsel. 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
4