US v. Abdi Umar, No. 15-6545 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6545 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ABDI MOHAMMED UMAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00056-MSD-FBS-5; 2:14-cv-00068-MSD) Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdi Mohammad Umar, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph Evan DePadilla, Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia; Jerome Teresinski, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Abdi Mohammed Umar seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2012). of appealability. 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) (2012). When prisoner the district court satisfies this jurists would reasonable denies relief standard find by that on the merits, demonstrating the district a that court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Umar has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny a the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
