UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7611
AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:91-cr-00250-WMN; 1:06-cv-02239-WMN)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing Abdel-Aziz’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and then
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a
§ 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of
appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate
both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Abdel-Aziz has not made the
requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003).
Accordingly, we 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
*
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).
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -