Wakeel Abdul-Sabur v. State of Virginia, No. 18-7336 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7336 WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00367-GEC-RSB) Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018 Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Virginia inmate Wakeel Abdul-Sabur seeks to appeal the district court’s orders construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it on that basis and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. * The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Abdul-Sabur has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with * Abdul-Sabur’s motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal order was filed within the 28-day period for filing a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and is properly treated as such. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 412 & n.11 (4th Cir. 2010). 2 oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3