UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6968

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAHID HASSAN MUSLIM, a/k/a Sharp, a/k/a Sean Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 21-7633

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAHID HASSAN MUSLIM, a/k/a Sharp, a/k/a Sean Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00184-RJC; 3:13-cr-00307-

RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted: July 29, 2022 Decided: September 30, 2022

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6968 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Before RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shahid Hassan Muslim, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6968 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Shahid Hassan Muslim seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

In No. 21-6968, Muslim seeks to appeal the district court’s May 3, 2021, order 

finding that Muslim’s § 2255 motion appears to have been untimely filed and affording 

him an opportunity to explain why his motion should not be dismissed as untimely. See

Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 707 (4th Cir. 2002). This court may exercise jurisdiction 

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-46 (1949). The order Muslim seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss appeal No. 21-6968 for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

In No. 21-7633, Muslim seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-

83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute 

of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(f)). This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6968 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
4

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Muslim has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Muslim’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss appeal No. 21-7633. We dispense with oral 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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6968 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 4 of 4