Raqib Al-Amin v. Robert Stevenson, III

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7084

RAQIB ABDUL AL-AMIN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:10-cv-02023-CMC)

Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raqib Abdul Al-Amin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Raqib Abdul Al-Amin seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 petition 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 Al-Amin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Al-Amin’s motion to supplement the record,

deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED