United States of America v. Johnson B. Ogunlana

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6871
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNSON B. OGUNLANA,
Defendant - Appellant.
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)
Submitted: December 27, 2022 Decided: January 5, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnson B. Ogunlana, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --