US v. Abdi Umar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00056-MSD-FBS-5, 2:14-cv-00068-MSD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645553]. Mailed to: Jerome Teresinski, Abdi Mohammed Umar. [15-6545]

Appeal: 15-6545

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6545

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ABDI MOHAMMED UMAR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:10-cr-00056-MSD-FBS-5; 2:14-cv-00068-MSD)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdi Mohammad Umar, Appellant Pro Se.
John Staige Davis, V,
WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph Evan DePadilla,
Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk,
Virginia;
Jerome
Teresinski,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6545

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Abdi Mohammed Umar seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

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
prisoner

the

district

court

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

denies

relief

standard
find

by

that

on

the

merits,

demonstrating

the

district

a

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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
Umar has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-6545

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 08/24/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3