Adib Makdessi v. Bryan Watson

Filing 920110309

<

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6268

ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00214-RLW)

Submitted:

January 28, 2011

Decided:

March 9, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C.

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this would standard find that by the demonstrating district that

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). denies relief both on procedural the When the district court the prisoner ruling must is

grounds,

demonstrate

that

dispositive

procedural

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record and conclude that

Makdessi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal.

We also deny Makdessi's motions for

transcripts and records at Government expense; to preserve his constitutional right to appeal; to compel the prison to grant 2

access to the law library; and for a protective order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and

We legal

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

DISMISSED

3