Court Opinion

ID: 4172213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-26 19:04:15.643822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:06.598258
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MOSTAFA AHMED AWWAD,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cr-00163-RBS-LRL-1; 2:16-
cv-00643-RBS)

Submitted: May 23, 2017                                           Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mostafa Ahmed Awwad, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Kevin Patrick Hudson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, Heather M. Schmidt, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Mostafa Ahmed Awwad seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Awwad has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the pending motion for a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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