Ahmad Muhammad v. JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden, FCI Petersburg, Virginia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7952
AHMAD MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden, FCI Petersburg,
Virginia,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CA-02-101-4)
Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 14, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ahmad Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*Muhammad originally filed his action as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000) petition.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ahmad Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).*
The district court dismissed the action as successive. The order
is 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 his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Muhammad has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We deny Muhammad’s motion to file a
supplemental brief, in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.
2531 (2004), and 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

-- 2 of 2 --