United States v. Freeman , 258 F. App'x 588 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7695
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
YACOB ABDUL FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-7389
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
YACOB ABDUL FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00060-JRS-3; 3:cv-573)
Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yacob Abdul Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Yacob Abdul Freeman seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and denying his subsequent 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) (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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the
district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive
procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-
84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Freeman has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the
appeals. 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 -