Abbas Ahmed v. Loretta Kelly

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999555320-2]; denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00184-GBL-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999643059]. Mailed to: Abbas Ahmed. [15-6263]

Appeal: 15-6263

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6263

ABBAS JAVED AHMED,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA KELLY, Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00184-GBL-TCB)

Submitted:

August 6, 2015

Decided:

August 19, 2015

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abbas Javed Ahmed, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6263

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Abbas
order

Javed

denying

Ahmed

his

seeks

“Motion

to
for

appeal

the

Relief

district

from

a

court’s

Judgment

or

Order[,]” in which he sought relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b).
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th
Cir.

2004).

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

debatable

or

assessment

wrong.

Slack

of

the

constitutional

v.

McDaniel,

529

U.S.

claims
473,

is
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 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
Ahmed has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,

and

dismiss

the

appeal.
2

We

dispense

with

oral

Appeal: 15-6263

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3