United States v. Asmar Newsome ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7744
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ASMAR NAFIS NEWSOME, a/k/a Shorty,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (4:10-cr-00053-RGD-FBS-1; 4:14-cv-00129-RGD)
    Submitted:   March 17, 2015                 Decided:   March 20, 2015
    Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Asmar Nafis Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Asmar Nafis Newsome seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order     dismissing      his     
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
         (2012)    motion    as
    successive.        The    order    is    not      appealable       unless    a     circuit
    justice    or    judge   issues    a    certificate         of    appealability.       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B) (2012).                   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    (2000);   see     Miller-El      v.   Cockrell,       
    537 U.S. 322
    ,   336-38
    (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 motion states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                           Slack,
    
    529 U.S. at 484-85
    .
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
    Newsome 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7744

Judges: Wilkinson, King, Davis

Filed Date: 3/20/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024