Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-07695/USCOURTS-ca4-06-07695-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yacob Abdul Freeman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

YACOB ABDUL FREEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-7389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

YACOB ABDUL FREEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00060-JRS-3; 3:cv-573)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 06-7695 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/17/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yacob Abdul Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-7695 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/17/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Yacob Abdul Freeman seeks

to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and denying his subsequent Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 prisoner

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 Freeman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the

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

Appeal: 06-7695 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/17/2007 Pg: 3 of 3