UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7921
TARIF ABDULLAH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; STATE OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-05-1050-WMN-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tarif Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tarif Abdullah, a Maryland inmate, seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition, which the district court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000) petition, and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. 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 Abdullah has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Abdullah’s motions for
appointment of counsel and for oral argument, 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 -