Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07312/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07312-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Saied Mousa Ramadan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAIED MOUSA RAMADAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00024-REP; 3:08-cv-00179)

Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saied Mousa Ramadan, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, 

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

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7312 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Saied Mousa Ramadan seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Ramadan has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Ramadan’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 09-7312 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7312 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3