US v. Fahed Tawalbeh

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:97-cr-00024-JPJ-7,7:14-cv-80755-JPJ-RSB,7:14-cv-00297-JPJ-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999498418]. Mailed to: Fahed Tawalbeh. [14-7141]

Appeal: 14-7141

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7141

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FAHED T. TAWALBEH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James P. Jones, District
Judge.
(7:97-cr-00024-JPJ-7; 7:14-cv-80755-JPJ-RSB; 7:14-cv00297-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted:

December 18, 2014

Decided:

December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fahed T. Tawalbeh, Appellant Pro Se.
Rick A. Mountcastle,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7141

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Fahed T. Tawalbeh seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 1651(a)

(2012)

motion

as

a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on
that

basis.

justice

or

The
judge

order
issues

is
a

not

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

unless

a

circuit

appealability.

28

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) (2012).

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 Tawalbeh has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-7141

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 12/22/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3