UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6216
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-6673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, a/k/a Jerome Smith,
a/k/a Michael Smith, a/k/a Bobby Seals, a/k/a
Bobby Seal, a/k/a Cedric Ellison, a/k/a
Fretral McRae, a/k/a Chreshan Allen,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:00-CR-75-F; 7:03-CV-17-F)
Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy,
Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion, and his motions for application of Booker1 and
Teague,2 to correct judgment, for reconsideration, and to recall
the mandate (Appeal No. 06-6216), as well as his “place holder”
motion, and the district court’s denial of his motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his “place holder motion.”
(Appeal No. 06-6673). 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 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 Abdel-Aziz has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
1
See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
2
See Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).
- 3 -
appeal.3 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
To the extent Abdel-Aziz seeks to raise claims for the first
time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. See Muth v.
United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
- 4 -