Court Opinion

ID: 1025176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:45:29.947198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:43.007107
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-7276

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANTWAN ASKIA,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(1:98-cr-00258-BEL-4; 1:04-cv-02914-BEL)

Submitted:   February 28, 2008            Decided:   March 5, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antwan Askia, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Antwan Askia seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.             The order is

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 Askia has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Askia’s

motion to supplement his informal brief, we deny his motion for a

certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal.                      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

                                   - 2 -