Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0336-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rashid EL-ABDULLAH, a/k/a Dwayne Branch, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VDOC, Respondent—Appellee. Rashid El-Abdullah, a/k/a Dwayne Branch, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-6628, 04-6721.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2004.
    Decided Aug. 16, 2004.
    Rashid El-Abdullah, Appellant pro se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Winslow Reed, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Rashid El-Abdullah seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his two petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that El-Abdullah has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny El-Abdullah’s motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss both appeals.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED