Adib Makdessi v. Commonwealth of Virginia , 546 F. App'x 320 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7249
ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00259-JRS)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, a Virginia inmate, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) petition as a successive petition for which
authorization had not been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(2006). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Makdessi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny the motion for the appointment of counsel,
2
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
*
Makdessi is free, of course, to seek authorization from
this court to file a successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3).
3