Court Opinion

ID: 2788082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-03-20 19:01:02.497325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:06:12.837496
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-7744

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ASMAR NAFIS NEWSOME, a/k/a Shorty,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00053-RGD-FBS-1; 4:14-cv-00129-RGD)

Submitted:   March 17, 2015                 Decided:   March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Asmar Nafis Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Asmar Nafis Newsome seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing      his     28    U.S.C.          § 2255     (2012)    motion    as

successive.        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

Newsome 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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3