United States v. Ibn Scott , 548 F. App'x 910 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7247
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    IBN MUHAMMED SCOTT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.       Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (9:08-cr-00583-SB-5; 9:12-cv-01809-SB)
    Submitted:   December 17, 2013            Decided:   December 20, 2013
    Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ibn Muhammed Scott, Appellant Pro Se.      Matthew J. Modica,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ibn     Muhammed      Scott    seeks     to      appeal     the     district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.    2013)    motion.        The   order    is   not      appealable       unless    a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B)         (2006).            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)
    (2006).    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 Scott 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: 19-2200

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 910

Filed Date: 12/20/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021