UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7513
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH ZIADEH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7571
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH ZIADEH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-273)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 19, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Ziadeh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Ziadeh, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion and a subsequent order denying his motion for a
certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the
final order in a habeas corpus 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 Ziadeh
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ziadeh’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
- 3 -