Sadat Abdullah v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999519799-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00105-JAG-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999572910]. Mailed to: Sadat Abdullah. [14-7830]

Appeal: 14-7830

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7830

SADAT MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00105-JAG-RCY)

Submitted:

April 23, 2015

Decided:

April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sadat Muhammad Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se.
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
Virginia, for Appellee.

Robert H. Anderson,
VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7830

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Sadat

Muhammad

Abdullah

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 petition 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
Abdullah has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 14-7830

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/28/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3