Court Opinion

ID: 2716340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-08 07:01:51.314629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:30.549405
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6808

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MUHAMMED MAHDEE ABDULLAH,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00371-F-1)

Submitted:   July 29, 2014                 Decided:   August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders treating his post-judgment motions as successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions, and dismissing the motions on

that basis.        The orders are 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 Abdullah has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

            Additionally, we construe Abdullah’s notice of appeal

and    informal    brief    as    an   application       to     file    a    second   or

                                            2
successive § 2255 motion.        United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).         In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

based on either:

     (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
     sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
     evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
     found the movant guilty of the offense; or

     (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
     to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
     that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012).         Abdullah’s claims do not satisfy

either of these criteria.         Therefore, we deny authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion.

            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

                                     3