Jamal Hakeem v. Warden of Turbeville

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6618 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6618

JAMAL HAKEEM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF TURBEVILLE (State),

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (1:24-cv-06658-CMC)

Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 24, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamal Hakeem, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6618 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jamal Hakeem seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hakeem’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

(2017). 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. 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 Hakeem has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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