IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ZIAD K. BECHARA, ) Petitioner, Vv. Civil Action No. 3:25CV613-HEH UNKNOWN, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing 28 U.S.C § 2254 Petition Without Prejudice) Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a

petition. By Memorandum Order entered on September 15, 2025, the Court directed Petitioner, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof, to pay the $5.00 filing fee or explain any special circumstances that would warrant excusing payment of the filing fee. The Court warned Petitioner that it would dismiss the action if Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or explain any special circumstances that would warrant excusing payment of the filing fee. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the entry of the September 15, 2025, Memorandum Order, and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only

when “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 & n.4 (1983)). No law

or evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A certificate of appealability will be denied. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. It is so Ordered.

Meh HENRY E. HUDSON Date: \Jay.24, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Richmond, Virginia