Opinion
21-6968 21-7633
09-30-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAHID HASSAN MUSLIM, a/k/a Sharp, a/k/a Sean Williams, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAHID HASSAN MUSLIM, a/k/a Sharp, a/k/a Sean Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
Shahid Hassan Muslim, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 29, 2022
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00184-RJC; 3:13-cr-00307-RJC-DCK-1)
Shahid Hassan Muslim, Appellant Pro Se.
Before RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Shahid Hassan Muslim seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
In No. 21-6968, Muslim seeks to appeal the district court's May 3, 2021, order finding that Muslim's § 2255 motion appears to have been untimely filed and affording him an opportunity to explain why his motion should not be dismissed as untimely. See Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 707 (4th Cir. 2002). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Muslim seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss appeal No. 21-6968 for lack of jurisdiction.
In No. 21-7633, Muslim seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 18283 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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, as here, 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 Muslim has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Muslim's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss appeal No. 21-7633. 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