Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06936/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6936

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DARIA KARIMIAN; BAHIROO BAHIZAD,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00406-CMH)

Submitted: January 30, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Spencer Dean Ault, LAW OFFICE OF SPENCER AULT, Lovettsville,

Virginia, for Appellants. Stephen P. Learned, Assistant United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6936 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daria Karimian and Bahiroo Bahizad seek to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motions. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A party satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Karimian and

Bahizad have 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

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-6936 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 2