US v. Adewale Aladekoba, No. 12-7075 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7075 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ADEWALE JOHNSON ALADEKOBA, a/k/a Jay Johnson, a/k/a Orlando Percival McGregory, a/k/a Wally, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00018-WMN-3; 1:12-cv-00924-WMN) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adewale Johnson Aladekoba, Appellant Pro Se. Roann Nichols, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adewale Johnson Aladekoba appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2011) motion for sentence reduction to the extent otherwise permitted by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error as to the denial of relief under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(B). Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Aladekoba, Nos. 1:93-cr-00018-WMN-3; 1:12-cv-00924-WMN (D. Md. June 5, 2012). The district court also considered Aladekoba s motion to the extent it was intended as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion, and dismissed it as successive. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of This portion of the order is justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies 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 2 prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aladekoba has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal related to § 2255 relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
