United States v. Felix Okafor ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6012
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    FELIX A. OKAFOR,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00059-H-1; 5:16-cv-
    00425-H)
    Submitted: March 29, 2018                                          Decided: April 3, 2018
    Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Felix A. Okafor, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant
    United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Felix A. Okafor 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 Okafor has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Okafor’s motion for a certificate of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6012

Filed Date: 4/3/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021