United States of America v. Malik Ormasha Yarborough

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7553
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MALIK ORMASHA YARBOROUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:93-cr-00402-CMH-5)
Submitted: March 2, 2007 Decided: March 9, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Malik Ormasha Yarborough, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Malik Ormasha Yarborough seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion
and denying reconsideration of that order. While the district
court construed Yarborough’s § 2255 motion as successive pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2244, we find the instant motion to be Yarborough’s
first § 2255 motion. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375
(2003). Nevertheless, the district court’s orders are not
appealable 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 absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims
by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Yarborough 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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --