Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06545/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06545-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abdi Mohammed Umar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

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 of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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 

Umar 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

Appeal: 15-6545 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6545 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3