United States v. Finesse Allah ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7525
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    FINESSE INFINITE ALLAH, a/k/a Marvin Mac Melvin, a/k/a Finesse Allah,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00144-BR-1; 7:16-cv-00126-
    BR)
    Submitted: January 21, 2020                                       Decided: January 24, 2020
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Finesse Infinite Allah, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Finesse Infinite Allah seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
    28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Allah has not made
    the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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 before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-7525

Filed Date: 1/24/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/24/2020