UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7383
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KHEM UN, a/k/a Khem Roeutanck Un,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00446-LO-1; 1:14-cv-00462-LO)
Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: April 28, 2016
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khem Un, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Scott Andrew Claffee,
Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Mary Katherine Barr
Daly, Assistant United States Attorney, Kellen Sean Dwyer, Adam
Ptashkin, Michael R. Tregle, Anna A. Vlasova, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Khem Un seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). 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
Un has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3