United States of America v. Oloyede Johnson, a/k/a Johnson Oloyede, a/k/a Little Black

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6892
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OLOYEDE JOHNSON, a/k/a Johnson Oloyede, a/k/a Little Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-JKB-4)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oloyede Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Oloyede Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion as untimely and denying Johnson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration. The orders are 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, 580 U.S.
100, 115-17 (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 Johnson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 of 2 --