UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOHAMAD YOUSSEF HAMMOUD, a/k/a Ali Abousaleh, a/k/a Ali
Albousaleh,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00147-GCM-DSC-1; 3:14-cv-00076-GCM)
Submitted: October 25, 2016 Decided: November 8, 2016
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Patrick McLoughlin, Jr., MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. William A. Brafford, Melissa Louise
Rikard, Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Craig Darren Randall, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mohamad Youssef Hammoud 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
Hammoud has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although
we grant Hammoud’s motion to file an oversize informal brief, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Hammoud also has filed a motion requesting that we remand his
case to the district court so that he may amend his § 2255 motion
to raise a claim under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
2
(2015). We deny the motion to remand and amend but construe it as
a motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b), 2255(h) (2012) for
authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).
Our review of the relevant materials convinces us that Hammoud
fails to make the prima facie showing necessary to receive the
requested authorization. Although Hammoud characterizes his claim
as one arising under Johnson, his claim has little in common with
the issue addressed in Johnson except that Hammoud also wishes to
make a general void-for-vagueness argument. Therefore, we deny
Hammoud’s application for authorization.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3