Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Abdullah, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record independently and concluded that Abdullah did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Abdullah did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Abdullah's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-09-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6571

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record independently and concluded that Abdullah did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Abdullah did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Abdullah's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    United States v. Abdullah, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record independently and concluded that Abdullah did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Abdullah did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Abdullah's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-6571

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MUHAMMED MAHDEE ABDULLAH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:04-cr-00371-F-1; 5:08-cv-00019-F)

    Submitted:

    September 4, 2009

    Decided:

    September 16, 2009

    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah,


    Hayes,
    Assistant
    United
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Appellant Pro Se.


    States
    Attorney,

    Anne Margaret
    Raleigh,
    North

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    motion.
    judge

    denying

    relief

    on

    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    2255

    (2006)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    2253(c)(1).

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not issue

    absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional


    right.

    Id. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    A prisoner satisfies this

    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).

    conclude

    We

    Abdullah

    have

    independently

    has

    not

    made

    reviewed
    the

    the

    record

    requisite

    and

    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

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like