US v. Mohamed Abdelshafi, No. 13-7598 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7598 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOHAMED ADAM ABDELSHAFI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00428-HEH-1; 3:11-cv-00064-HEH) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mohamed Adam Abdelshafi, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Errington Atkinson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Brian L. Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mohamed Adam Abdelshafi seeks to appeal the district court s order motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues denying a relief certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a on of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. his showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdelshafi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate dispense of with appealability, and oral because argument 2 dismiss 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.
