Sadat Abdullah v. Harold Clarke , 609 F. App'x 162 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6376
    SADAT MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District
    Judge. (3:14-cv-00105-JAG-RCY)
    Submitted:   July 6, 2015                   Decided:   July 16, 2015
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sadat Muhammad Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se.     Robert H. Anderson,
    III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF         VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Sadat Muhammad Abdullah seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability.           The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability.    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(A) (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 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
    Abdullah has not made the requisite showing.      Abdullah’s appeal is
    essentially duplicative of his appeal in Abdullah v. Clarke, 600
    F. App’x 178 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-7830).       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 presented
    2
    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6376

Citation Numbers: 609 F. App'x 162

Filed Date: 7/16/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023