Rashid El-Abdullah, a/k/a Dwayne Branch v. Director, Vdoc

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6628
RASHID EL-ABDULLAH, a/k/a Dwayne Branch,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR, VDOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 04-6721
RASHID EL-ABDULLAH, a/k/a Dwayne Branch,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-174-7; CA-03-87-7)
Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 16, 2004

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rashid El-Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant
Attorney General, Margaret Winslow Reed, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Rashid El-Abdullah seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his two
petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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). A certificate of appealability will
not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As to claims dismissed by a
district court 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 El-Abdullah has not satisfied
either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003). Accordingly, we deny El-Abdullah’s motions for a
certificate of appealability and dismiss both appeals.

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --