Kenneth Oteng Duodu v. Chadwich Dotson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7009
KENNETH OTENG DUODU,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICH DOTSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00410-AWA-LRL)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Oteng Duodu, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Oteng Duodu seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Duodu’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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 petition
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 Duodu has not made
the requisite showing. See Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619-21 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding
that Vienna Convention claims must first be presented to state court to satisfy exhaustion
of state court remedies). 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 --