Court Opinion

ID: 4567922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:29:37.037247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:11.070369
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7479

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ABDI MOHAMMED UMAR,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-0056-MSD-FBS-5; 2:16-cv-
00392-MSD)

Submitted: June 16, 2020                                          Decided: June 23, 2020

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdi Mohammed Umar, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Abdi Mohammed Umar seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551

(2015). 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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, 137 S. Ct.

759, 773-74 (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 Umar has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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 this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                              2