Court Opinion

ID: 1024595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:35:50.273005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:35.666795
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

YACOB ABDUL FREEMAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

                            No. 07-7389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

YACOB ABDUL FREEMAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00060-JRS-3; 3:cv-573)

Submitted:   December 13, 2007         Decided:     December 17, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yacob Abdul Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                              - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

              In these consolidated appeals, Yacob Abdul Freeman seeks

to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and denying his subsequent Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motion.           The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).           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) (2000).         A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-

84 (4th Cir. 2001).      We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude      that   Freeman    has   not   made   the    requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the

appeals.      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 -