Islam v. Braxton
This text of 104 F. App'x 357 (Islam v. Braxton) 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.
Opinion
Dawud Yamini Islam appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 *358 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Islam has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Islam’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 F. App'x 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/islam-v-braxton-ca4-2004.