US v. Masoud Khan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:03-cr-00296-LMB-2,1:08-cv-00533-LMB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998704889]. [11-6842]

Appeal: 11-6842

Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6842

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MASOUD AHMAD KHAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00296-LMB-2; 1:08-cv-00533-LMB)

Submitted:

October 6, 2011

Decided:

October 20, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan P. Sheldon, CONNELL, SHELDON, & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Gordon D. Kromberg, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6842

Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Masoud Ahmad Khan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order and

judgment

denying

(West Supp. 2011) motion.

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.A.

§ 2255

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§

2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

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

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Khan
has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 11-6842

Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3