US v. Abdullah Shakoor

Filing 920100225

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8060

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ABDULLAH RASOOL SHAKOOR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:97-cr-00064-BO-1; 7:07-cv-00069-BO)

Submitted:

February 8, 2010

Decided:

February 25, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdullah Rasool Shakoor, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Abdullah Rasool Shakoor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motion to recuse. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." this 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies jurists would

standard

reasonable

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 record (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently has not made reviewed the the

conclude

Shakoor

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because

and dismiss the appeal.

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process. DISMISSED

3