Filed: Nov. 16, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7234 WILLIAM ABDULLAH MUSTAFA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-00892-JAB-DPD) Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: November 16, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7234 WILLIAM ABDULLAH MUSTAFA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-00892-JAB-DPD) Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: November 16, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismiss..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7234
WILLIAM ABDULLAH MUSTAFA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-00892-JAB-DPD)
Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: November 16, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Abdullah Mustafa, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Abdullah Mustafa seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (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). 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 Mustafa 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2