US v. Keith Eugene Gaffney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:95-cr-00053-JCC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999629050]. Mailed to: Gaffney. [15-6658]

Appeal: 15-6658

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6658

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEITH EUGENE GAFFNEY, a/k/a Khalif Abdul Qawi Mujahid; a/k/a
Keith Gaffney-Bey; a/k/a Fly; a/k/a Slim,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:95-cr-00053-JCC-1)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khalif Abdul Qawi Mujahid, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas More
Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6658

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Khalif Abdul Qawi Mujahid, formerly known as Keith Eugene
Gaffney, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying for
lack

of

jurisdiction

appealability.

Mujahid’s

motion

for

a

certificate

of

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

See 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

(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 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
Mujahid has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

Appeal: 15-6658

Doc: 9

adequately

Filed: 07/28/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3