United States v. Ziadeh

177 F. App'x 283

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2006
• Docket: 05-7513
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH ZIADEH,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 05-7571

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-273)

Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 19, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Joseph Ziadeh, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion and a subsequent order denying his motion for a

certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a habeas corpus 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 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ziadeh

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ziadeh’s

motion for 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -