Scribd
Upload
19 views3 pages

Abdullah v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2003)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Al-Sayyid Hamza Abdullah's appeal of a district court's denial of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit determined that Abdullah did not satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability, as he did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied or show that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
19 views3 pages

Abdullah v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2003)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Al-Sayyid Hamza Abdullah's appeal of a district court's denial of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit determined that Abdullah did not satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability, as he did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied or show that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7346

AL-SAYYID HAMZA ABDULLAH,


Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-01-699-2)

Submitted:

January 16, 2003

Decided:

January 23, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Al-Sayyid Hamza Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,


OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Al-Sayyid Hamza Abdullah seeks to appeal the district courts
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
(2000).

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).

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by


a district court on the merits absent a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural


grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the
petitioner can demonstrate both (1) that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right and (2) that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling.

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.


denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001).

We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Abdullah
has not satisfied either standard.

See Abdullah v. Angelone, No.

CA-01-699-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma


pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (2000).

We

because

dispense

with

oral

argument

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

You might also like