UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YOUNIS EL SAYEDRI, a/k/a Younis Badri, a/k/a Younis
Abdulkarim Mohamed El Sayedri, a/k/a Younis Abdalkarim
Mohamed, a/k/a Younis Abdel Mohamed Badri, a/k/a Younis
Abdelkar Badri, a/k/a Youngish Elsayedri,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00290-AJT-1; 1:16-cv-00533-AJT)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Younis El Sayedri, Appellant Pro Se. Michael John Frank, Julia
K. Martinez, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Younis El Sayedri seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
El Sayedri has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny El Sayedri’s motion
for a copy of the transcript at Government expense, and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3