UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7068
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOHAMMAD ASHRAF MOHAMMAD-OMAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00425-CMH-3; 1:10-cv-01112-CMH)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mohammad Ashraf Mohammad-Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence
Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Ashraf Mohammad-Omar seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying him leave to amend his previously
denied 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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) (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 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 Mohammad-Omar has not made the requisite showing.
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 materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3