UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7075
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-00924-WMN)
Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Adewale Johnson Aladekoba, Appellant Pro Se. Roann Nichols,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adewale Johnson Aladekoba appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2011)
motion for sentence reduction to the extent otherwise permitted
by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error as to the denial of relief
under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(B). Accordingly, we affirm that
portion of the order for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Aladekoba, Nos. 1:93-cr-00018-WMN-3;
1:12-cv-00924-WMN (D. Md. June 5, 2012).
The district court also considered Aladekoba’s motion
to the extent it was intended as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion,
and dismissed it as successive. This portion of 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
2
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 portion
of the appeal related to § 2255 relief.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3