Court Opinion

ID: 622612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-02-11 01:01:33+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:01.701310
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING

                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-6977

RASHI’D QAWI’ AL-AMI’N,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00381-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted:   January 30, 2012             Decided:   February 10, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rashi’d Qawi’ Al-Ami’n, Appellant Pro Se.       Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Rashi’d Qawi’ Al-Ami’n petitions for panel and en banc

rehearing of his appeal.           For reasons appearing to the court, we

grant    panel     rehearing     and   vacate      our    initial      opinion.        Al-

Ami’n’s petition for en banc rehearing is denied.

            Al-Ami’n seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.                          The district

court’s order       is    not    appealable      unless    a   circuit    justice       or

judge     issues     a    certificate       of    appealability.           28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).           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) (2006).                 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 petition 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 Al-Ami’n has not made the requisite showing.

                                            2
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

                                    3