Opinion
No. 13-7249
11-22-2013
ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00259-JRS) Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as a successive petition for which authorization had not been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 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 Makdessi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for the appointment of counsel, 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.
Makdessi is free, of course, to seek authorization from this court to file a successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
DISMISSED