Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

AHMED v. KELLY, 15-6263. (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: infco20150819078 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Abbas Javed Ahmed seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his "Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order[,]" in which he sought relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 , 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability
More

UNPUBLISHED

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Abbas Javed Ahmed seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his "Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order[,]" in which he sought relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 petition 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 Ahmed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer