United States v. Faheem Jordan

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Faheem Jordan

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6641 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6641

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FAHEEM ALI JORDAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cr-00035-REP-MRC-1; 3:22- cv-00443-REP)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Faheem Ali Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6641 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Faheem Ali Jordan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis,

580 U.S. 100

, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v.

Thaler,

565 U.S. 134, 140-41

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jordan has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jordan’s 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 this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished