United States of America v. Gabul Abdullahi Ali

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7352
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GABUL ABDULLAHI ALI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 19-7557
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABDI WALI DIRE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 19-7658
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
v.
MOHAMMED MODIN HASAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00056-MSD-FBS-2; 2:16-cv-
00393-MSD; 2:10-cr-00056-MSD-FBS-3; 2:16-cv-00433-MSD; 2:10-cr-00056-MSD-
FBS-1; 2:16-cv-00227-MSD)
Submitted: February 14, 2022 Decided: March 15, 2022
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gabul Abdullahi Ali, Abdi Wali Dire, Mohammed Modin Hasan, Appellants Pro Se.
Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Gabul Abdullahi Ali, Abdi Wali Dire, and
Mohammed Modin Hasan seek to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on their
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The orders are 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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.
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 Appellants have not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability in each
case and dismiss the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --