US v. Mohammad Shibin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00033-RGD-DEM-1,2:15-cv-00185-RGD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999871443]. Mailed to: Mohammad Shibin. [15-7940]

Appeal: 15-7940

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7940

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOHAMMAD SAAILI SHIBIN, a/k/a Khalif Ahmed Shibin, a/k/a
Mohammad Ali, a/k/a Ali Jama,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00033-RGD-DEM-1; 2:15-cv-00185-RGD)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mohammad Saaili Shibin, Appellant Pro Se.
Joseph Evan
DePadilla, Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Norfolk, Virginia;, Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States
Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7940

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Saaili Shibin 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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Shibin has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

of

with

contentions

are

appealability

oral

argument

adequately

and

dismiss

because

presented

Accordingly, we deny

in

the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2