United States of America v. Mustafa Muhammad

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6528
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1; 3:22-cv-
00105-REP)
Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mustafa Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mustafa Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing four of his
pending motions as 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and dismissing them as successive and
unauthorized. The court’s decision is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Muhammad has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss this part of the appeal.
In the same order, the district court denied Muhammad’s motion requesting certain
information from the Government. We discern no reversible error in this decision, and we
therefore affirm this part of the court’s order. United States v. Muhammad, No. 3:14-cr-
00055-REP-DJN-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2022).
We dispense with 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --