Wakeel Sabur v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 08-6746 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6746 WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00230-JCT-MFU) Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 14, 2008 Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wakeel Abdul-Sabur seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district any of (2000). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdul-Sabur has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Abdul- Sabur 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.