US v. Hassan Hammoud, No. 16-6964 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6964 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HASSAN HAMMOUD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00017-RDB-1; 1:15-cv-03239-RDB) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: December 12, 2016 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hassan Hammoud, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hassan Hammoud seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or The order is not judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the merits, a When the district court denies prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s wrong.” assessment Slack of v. the constitutional McDaniel, 529 U.S. claims 473, debatable 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). or see 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 Hammoud has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this 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.