US v. Abdel-Aziz, No. 06-6216 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6216 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 06-6673 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, a/k/a Jerome Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith, a/k/a Bobby Seals, a/k/a Bobby Seal, a/k/a Cedric Ellison, a/k/a Fretral McRae, a/k/a Chreshan Allen, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:00-CR-75-F; 7:03-CV-17-F) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy, Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and his motions for application of Booker1 and Teague,2 to correct judgment, for reconsideration, and to recall the mandate (Appeal No. 06-6216), as well as his place holder motion, and the reconsideration district of the (Appeal No. 06-6673). court s denial of denial his of place his motion holder for motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent a constitutional right. A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdel-Aziz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 1 See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 2 See Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). - 3 - appeal.3 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 To the extent Abdel-Aziz seeks to raise claims for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). - 4 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
