Abdul-Sabur v. Virginia

Full title: WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 30, 2019

No. 19-6279 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2019)

Opinion

No. 19-6279

04-30-2019

WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00035-GEC-PMS) Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Abdul-Sabur 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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED