US v. Jawaad Nash
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999112845-2] Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00039-FDW-2,3:12-cv-00283-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999182259]. Mailed to: Jawaad Nash. [13-6639]
Appeal: 13-6639
Doc: 8
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6639
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAWAAD NASH, a/k/a Wad,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-FDW-2; 3:12-cv-00283-FDW)
Submitted:
August 23, 2013
Decided:
August 28, 2013
Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jawaad Nash, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-6639
Doc: 8
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Jawaad Nash seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying
relief
motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge
issues
on
a
his
absent
U.S.C.A.
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue
28
“a
of
(West
Supp.
appealability.
28
2013)
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
§ 2255
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 Nash 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: 13-6639
Doc: 8
contentions
Filed: 08/28/2013
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not 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?