Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Said, 06-6757 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-6757 Visitors: 56
Filed: Aug. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6757 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MOHAMMED ASAD SAID, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (1:05-cv-01248-TSE; 1:03-cr-00556-TSE) Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mohammed
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6757



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MOHAMMED ASAD SAID,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (1:05-cv-01248-TSE; 1:03-cr-00556-TSE)


Submitted: July 25, 2006                    Decided: August 3, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mohammed Asad Said, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Mohammed Asad Said seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his application for a certificate of

appealability.    The order is 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 Said 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 -

Source:  CourtListener

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