United States v. Hakim Rashid ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6978
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    HAKIM ABDULAH RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00941-RBH-1; 4:17-cv-02971-
    RBH)
    Submitted: December 18, 2018                                Decided: December 21, 2018
    Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Hakim Abdulah Rashid, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Hakim Abdulah Rashid seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
    his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The
    orders are 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 Rashid 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6978

Filed Date: 12/21/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2018