Abdel-Aziz v. US

Filing 920070104

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7611

AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00250-WMN; 1:06-cv-02239-WMN)

Submitted:

December 21, 2006

Decided:

January 4, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz seeks to appeal the district court's order construing Abdel-Aziz's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and then dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 28 U.S.C.

When, as here, a district court dismisses a

§ 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both "(1) `that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right' and (2) `that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.'" Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Abdel-Aziz has not made the requisite showing. (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

contentions

To the extent Abdel-Aziz seeks to raise claims for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). - 2 -

*

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -