US v. Freeman

Filing 920071217

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus YACOB ABDUL FREEMAN, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-7389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus YACOB ABDUL FREEMAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00060-JRS-3; 3:cv-573)

Submitted:

December 13, 2007

Decided:

December 17, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yacob Abdul Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Yacob Abdul Freeman seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and has not made the requisite showing.

Freeman

Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -