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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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