Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07097/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Divine Shabazz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DIVINE SHABAZZ, a/k/a Lamar Martin,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00344-HCM-3)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Divine Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7097 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Divine Shabazz seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion construed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 

60(b) for reconsideration of 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 

Shabazz 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: 15-7097 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/23/2015 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: 15-7097 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3