United States v. Rajul Ruhbayan , 460 F. App'x 209 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7053
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAJUL RUHBAYAN, a/k/a Creme, a/k/a James Vernon Wood, a/k/a
James Vernette Johnson, a/k/a Kreem, a/k/a Day-Ja, a/k/a
Deja, a/k/a Amir Ruhbayan, a/k/a Jibra'el Ruh'alamin, a/k/a
Jibrael Ruhalamin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00029-RBS-FBS-1; 2:11-cv-00130-RBS)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rajul Ruhbayan, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rajul Ruhbayan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion, and its order denying his motion to alter or amend the
judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Ruhbayan has not made the requisite showing.
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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3