Court Opinion

ID: 4568239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:33:44.03181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:02.691831
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-7870

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

FARSHIEN BAGHALZADEH,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00272-RJC-DSC-1; 3:18-cv-
00400-RJC)

Submitted: July 31, 2020                                     Decided: September 2, 2020

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Farshien Baghalzadeh, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Farshien Baghalzadeh seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists could find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137

S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. 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 Baghalzadeh 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2