Opinion
22-6871
01-05-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNSON B. OGUNLANA, Defendant-Appellant.
Johnson B. Ogunlana, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 27, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00285-CCB-1)
Johnson B. Ogunlana, Appellant Pro Se.
Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnson B. Ogunlana appeals the district court's order denying his motions for sentencing credit while on pretrial release and his release on bond pending a decision in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the court's denial of Ogunlana's motion for sentencing credit. Accordingly, we affirm.
That part of the district court's order denying Ogunlana's motion for release on bond pending a decision in his § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ogunlana has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we affirm in part and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in part. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART