Nabil Aissi v. Jeffrey Crawford , 546 F. App'x 321 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7426
NABIL AISSI,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY CRAWFORD, Warden, Farmville Immigration Detention
Center; JOHN MORTON, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; THOMAS HOMAN, Executive Associate Director,
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; MATTHEW MUNROE, Director, Washington
Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; ERIC H. HOLDER, U.S.
Attorney General; JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00425-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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, PC, Arlington,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nabil Aissi seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. 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 Aissi 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
3