US v. Shamsadeen Purvis, No. 08-6867 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 24, 2008.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6867 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHAMSADEEN IBN PURVIS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:04-cr-00495-AW-1; 8:08-cv-00170-AW) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 14, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shamsadeen Ibn Purvis, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Richard Pauze, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shamsadeen court s order or Purvis dismissing 2010) motion. justice Ibn his issue 28 to appeal U.S.C.A. the § 2255 district (West Supp. The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not seeks absent a constitutional right. certificate of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Purvis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
