Court Opinion

ID: 4101176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-22 20:01:40.98835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:13.995174
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-6826

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MIRWAISS AMINZADA,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00130-CMH-10; 1:15-cv-00825-CMH)

Submitted:   November 17, 2016            Decided:   November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mirwaiss Aminzada, Appellant Pro Se.    Lauren Elyse Marziani,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Mirwaiss Aminzada seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.    The order

is 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

Aminzada 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 dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

                                 2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                                3