JAMEL (I’MAN) KABIR, a/k/a Jamel Muhammed Kabir, a/k/a Ernest Williams v. JON E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7255
JAMEL (I’MAN) KABIR, a/k/a Jamel Muhammed
Kabir, a/k/a Ernest Williams,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JON E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-3778-3-18BC)
Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamel (I’Man) Kabir, Appellant Pro Se. John William McIntosh,
Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jamel Kabir, also known as Ernest Williams, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000) petition as successive and untimely. An appeal may not be
taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 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 both that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (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 Kabir
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent
that Kabir’s informal brief and notice of appeal could be construed
as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition,
we deny such authorization. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --