UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7918
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID M. KISSI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (8:05-cr-00254-PWG-1; 8:12-cv-01944-AW)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Kristi Noel O’Malley, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David M. Kissi seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying motion to reopen his closed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
proceeding. 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
Kissi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny Kissi’s motion to appoint
counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Kissi’s motion to
waive the prefiling injunction as it does not apply to this
proceeding. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3