Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06263/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06263-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abbas Javed Ahmed
Appellant
David B. Everett
Appellee
Loretta Kelly
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6263

ABBAS JAVED AHMED,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LORETTA KELLY, Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:10-cv-00184-GBL-TCB)

Submitted: August 6, 2015 Decided: August 19, 2015

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abbas Javed Ahmed, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6263 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Abbas Javed Ahmed seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his “Motion for Relief from a Judgment or 

Order[,]” in which he sought relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th 

Cir. 2004). 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 petition 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 

Ahmed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 15-6263 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6263 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3