Abbas Ahmed v. Loretta Kelly

612 F. App'x 689
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 19, 2015
Docket15-6263
StatusUnpublished

This text of 612 F. App'x 689 (Abbas Ahmed v. Loretta Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abbas Ahmed v. Loretta Kelly, 612 F. App'x 689 (4th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Abbas Javed Ahmed seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order[,]” in which he sought relief pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ahmed 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Juanita Pope Reid v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director
369 F.3d 363 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
612 F. App'x 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbas-ahmed-v-loretta-kelly-ca4-2015.