US v. Abdullah Shakoor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999098392-2]. Originating case number: 7:97-cr-00064-BO-1,7:07-cv-00069-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999153168]. Mailed to: appellant. [13-6575]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-6575 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/18/2013 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6575 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ABDULLAH RASOOL SHAKOOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:97-cr-00064-BO-1; 7:07-cv-00069-BO) Submitted: July 17, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdullah Rasool Shakoor, Appellant Pro Se. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Carolina, for Appellee. Jennifer P. Raleigh, North Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-6575 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/18/2013 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Abdullah Rasool Shakoor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration * of the court’s order 2013) motion. justice or 28 U.S.C. dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a § 2253(c)(1)(B) certificate (2006). of A appealability. certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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 constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. * denial of a constitutional We note that the motion was a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider, not a second or successive § 2255 motion. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-08 (4th Cir. 2003). 2 Appeal: 13-6575 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/18/2013 Pg: 3 of 3 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shakoor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Shakoor’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?