United States v. Obi

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 2006
Docket05-7503
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Obi (United States v. Obi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Obi, (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KINGSLEY OBI, a/k/a Obi Kingsley,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR- 99-0235-DKC; CA-02-2977)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: January 4, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kingsley Obi, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Kingsley Obi seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district

court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Obi has not

made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003). 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Obi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-obi-ca4-2006.