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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?