Abbas Ahmed v. Loretta Kelly

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999043564-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998986742-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00184-GBL-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999121691].. [12-7831]

Appeal: 12-7831

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/04/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7831

ABBAS JAVED AHMED,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA KELLY, Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00184-GBL-TCB)

Submitted:

May 30, 2013

Decided:

June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia,
for Appellant. Gregory William Franklin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7831

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/04/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Abbas Javed Ahmed seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition,
and has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The district court’s

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2006).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

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

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

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 petition 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 Ahmed has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
2

We dispense with oral

Appeal: 12-7831

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/04/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3