US v. Shabazz
Filing
920070725
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6432
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DIVINE SHABAZZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry Coke Morgan Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00344-3; 3:06-cv-00518)
Submitted: July 19, 2007
Decided:
July 25, 2007
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Divine Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Divine Shabazz seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) relief. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). record and conclude that We have independently reviewed the has not made the requisite
Shabazz
showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before
contentions the court
materials
would
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?