Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    United States v. Alexander Asa-Kwapong, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Alexander Asa-Kwapong. The court dismissed Asa-Kwapong's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and discovery motions. The court determined that Asa-Kwapong did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Alexander Asa-Kwapong, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Alexander Asa-Kwapong. The court dismissed Asa-Kwapong's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and discovery motions. The court determined that Asa-Kwapong did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7484

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Alexander Asa-Kwapong. The court dismissed Asa-Kwapong's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and discovery motions. The court determined that Asa-Kwapong did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    United States v. Alexander Asa-Kwapong, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Alexander Asa-Kwapong. The court dismissed Asa-Kwapong's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and discovery motions. The court determined that Asa-Kwapong did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-7484

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALEXANDER ASA-KWAPONG,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:12-cr-00416-GBL-1; 1:13-cv-01484-GBL)

    Submitted:

    January 29, 2016

    Decided:

    March 4, 2016

    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alexander Asa-Kwapong, Appellant Pro Se.


    Karen Ledbetter
    Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Ryan K. Dickey, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alexander Asa-Kwapong seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion and
    denying

    as

    appealable

    moot

    his

    unless

    discovery
    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    motions.
    justice

    The
    or

    order

    judge

    is

    issues

    not
    a

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
    Asa-Kwapong has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    2

    presented in the materials before this court and argument would


    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like