United States v. Abdullah Shakoor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6575
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABDULLAH RASOOL SHAKOOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:97-cr-00064-BO-1; 7:07-cv-00069-BO)
Submitted: July 17, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abdullah Rasool Shakoor, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Abdullah Rasool Shakoor seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration * of the
court’s order dismissing 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).
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 note that the motion was a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
to reconsider, not a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005); United States
v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-08 (4th Cir. 2003).
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Shakoor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Shakoor’s motion for 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
3