Court Opinion

ID: 9374754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:39.535184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.693857
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7072      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7072

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1; 3:19-cv-00716-
        MHL)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7072       Doc: 14         Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya 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 demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Nabaya has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Nabaya’s motion to seal his

        personal documents, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability, to remand the

        case, for a witness statement, for a transcript at Government expense, and “to grant appeal

        for lack of a warrant and complaint,” and we 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