United States v. Faheem Jordan
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255motion. 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- Unpublished