United States v. Mustapha

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7314 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GANNY GEORGE MUSTAPHA, a/k/a Benjamin F. Okorocha, a/k/a Ganny G. Mustapha, a/k/a George Mustafa, a/k/a G, a/k/a G. Harris, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-02-96; CA-04-618-3) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ganny George Mustapha, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ganny George Mustapha, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (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 Mustapha has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mustapha’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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -