US v. Mushulla Nixon, No. 14-6836 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6836 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MUSHULLA SALEEM NIXON, a/k/a M’Shulla, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00053-FL-1; 4:14-cv-00057-FL) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mushulla Saleem Nixon, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Shailika K. Kotiya, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mushulla Saleem § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of U.S.C. district § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 the The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying Nixon 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 Nixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Nixon’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and 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.
