Filed: Jun. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7740 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HAFEEZ ODOFFIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00049-RAJ-LRL-4; 4:19- cv-00040-RAJ) Submitted: April 29, 2020 Decided: June 5, 2020 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hafeez
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7740 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HAFEEZ ODOFFIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00049-RAJ-LRL-4; 4:19- cv-00040-RAJ) Submitted: April 29, 2020 Decided: June 5, 2020 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hafeez ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7740
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HAFEEZ ODOFFIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00049-RAJ-LRL-4; 4:19-
cv-00040-RAJ)
Submitted: April 29, 2020 Decided: June 5, 2020
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hafeez Odoffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hafeez Odoffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Odoffin 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