US v. Malik X. Shakur

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00485-CMC-2,3:11-cv-70102-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998957858]. Mailed to: Malik Shakur. [12-6988]

Appeal: 12-6988

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/12/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6988

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MALIK X. SHAKUR, a/k/a Malik X. Shakur, a/k/a Willie Lamb,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00485-CMC-2; 3:11-cv-70102-CMC)

Submitted:

August 31, 2012

Decided:

October 12, 2012

Before KING, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malik X. Shakur, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Frank Daley, Jr.,
William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina; Christopher Todd Hagins, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6988

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/12/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Malik X. Shakur seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Shakur has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6988

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/12/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3