Court Opinion

ID: 4407854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-06-18 19:00:23.699779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:48:51.263904
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6454

ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00151-MHL-RCY)

Submitted: June 13, 2019                                          Decided: June 18, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an unauthorized,

successive petition over which it lacked jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.             See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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, as here, 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 Makdessi has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Makdessi’s motion

for transcripts at Government expense. 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