US v. Soumahoro Amara

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998468409-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 8:08-cr-00548-RWT-1,8:10-cv-1372-RWT,8:09-cr-00106-RWT-1,8:10-cv-1385-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998579986]. Mailed to: Soumaharo Amara. [10-7346]

Appeal: 10-7346

Document: 13

Date Filed: 05/02/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7346

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SOUMAHORO AMARA, a/k/a Soumahoro Ben Amara,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08cr-00548-RWT-1; 8:10-cv-1372-RWT; 8:09-cr-00106-RWT-1; 8:10-cv1385-RWT)

Submitted:

April 28, 2011

Decided:

May 2, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Soumahoro Amara, Appellant Pro Se.
Jonathan C. Su, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7346

Document: 13

Date Filed: 05/02/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Soumahoro Amara seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.A.

§ 2255

(West

2010) motions and his motion for reconsideration.

Supp.

The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

A
“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

Slack

this

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling

is

debatable,

and

that

the

motion

states

a

debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at

the

484-85.

conclude

We

that

Accordingly,

we

have

Amara
deny

independently
has

not

reviewed

made

Amara’s

motion

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

the
for

record

requisite
a

and

showing.

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 10-7346

Document: 13

Date Filed: 05/02/2011

Page: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3