Court Opinion

ID: 4676507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-04-12 19:01:31.001518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:38.445410
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

RAJUL RUHBAYAN, a/k/a Creme, a/k/a James Vernon Wood, a/k/a James
Vernette Johnson, a/k/a Kreem, a/k/a Day-Ja, a/k/a Deja, a/k/a Amir Ruhbayan,
a/k/a Jibra’el Ruh’alamin, a/k/a Jibrael Ruhalamin,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00029-RBS-FBS-1;
2:20-cv-00506-RBS)

Submitted: March 30, 2021                                         Decided: April 12, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rajul Ruhbayan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Rajul Ruhbayan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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). 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). 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 Ruhbayan has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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