Court Opinion

ID: 1019694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:39:36.731426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:11.410298
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6513

FARUK IBRAHIM,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JOSEPH P. SACCHET, CCE; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:05-
cv-01418-PJM)

Submitted: June 15, 2006                       Decided: June 21, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Faruk Ibrahim, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Faruk Ibrahim, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) petition.    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 Ibrahim 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

                                                          DISMISSED

                               - 2 -