United States of America v. Alexander Asa-Kwapong

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7484
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEXANDER ASA-KWAPONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00416-GBL-1; 1:13-cv-01484-GBL)
Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: March 4, 2016
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Asa-Kwapong, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Ledbetter
Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Ryan K. Dickey, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Asa-Kwapong seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying as moot his discovery motions. 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
Asa-Kwapong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --