United States v. Ziadeh, 4th Cir. (2006)

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH ZIADEH,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 05-7571

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH ZIADEH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-273)

Submitted:

March 31, 2006

Decided:

April 19, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Ziadeh, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255
(2000) motion and a subsequent order denying his motion for a
certificate of appealability.

An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice


or

judge

issues

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


the district courts assessment of his constitutional claims is
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 (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 Ziadeh
has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Ziadehs

motion for 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 before the


court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -

You might also like