Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Muhammad v. Brooks, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ahmad Muhammad's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court had dismissed the motion as an impermissible successive § 2255 motion. The appellate court denied Muhammad's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The appellate court also denied Muhammad's motion to file a supplemental brief related to a recent Supreme Court decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-04-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7952

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ahmad Muhammad's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court had dismissed the motion as an impermissible successive § 2255 motion. The appellate court denied Muhammad's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The appellate court also denied Muhammad's motion to file a supplemental brief related to a recent Supreme Court decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Muhammad v. Brooks, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ahmad Muhammad's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court had dismissed the motion as an impermissible successive § 2255 motion. The appellate court denied Muhammad's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The appellate court also denied Muhammad's motion to file a supplemental brief related to a recent Supreme Court decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7952

    AHMAD MUHAMMAD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOSEPH M.
    Virginia,

    BROOKS,

    Warden,

    FCI

    Petersburg,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (CA-02-101-4)

    Submitted:

    March 23, 2005

    Decided:

    April 14, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ahmad Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ahmad Muhammad seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).*
    The district court dismissed the action as successive.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    (2000).

    demonstrating

    that

    constitutional

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    this

    would
    that

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Muhammad has not made the requisite
    showing.
    dismiss

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and


    the

    appeal.

    We

    deny

    Muhammads

    motion

    to

    file

    supplemental brief, in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.


    2531 (2004), and 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
    *

    Muhammad originally filed his action as a 28 U.S.C. 2241


    (2000) petition.
    - 2 -

    You might also like