United States v. Zakaria ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6850
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-91-181, CA-02-1651-A)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hosam Mohammed Zakaria, Appellant Pro Se. Steven John Mulroy,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hosam M. Zakaria appeals the district court’s order denying as
successive his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000), and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of
the denial of his § 2255 motion. This court may grant a certificate
of appealability only if the appellant makes a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion
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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Zakaria has not made the requisite showing. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2