Court Opinion

ID: 152532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-10 00:03:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:29.056515
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 09-7312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SAIED MOUSA RAMADAN,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00024-REP; 3:08-cv-00179)

Submitted:   July 28, 2010                 Decided:   August 9, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saied Mousa Ramadan, Appellant Pro Se.    Olivia N. Hawkins,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Saied       Mousa    Ramadan        seeks   to     appeal      the   district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2010)   motion.         The   order      is    not    appealable        unless    a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).                  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) (2006).                  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 Ramadan has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we    deny    Ramadan’s       motion      for    a   certificate       of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                        We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                            2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3