Raaj Rafa El, a/k/a Roger Moore, a/k/a Raaj Rafael v. Warden Frederick T. Abelto; Maryland Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7408
RAAJ RAFA EL, a/k/a Roger Moore, a/k/a Raaj Rafael,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN FREDERICK T. ABELTO; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01948-JRR)
Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 25, 2023
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raaj Rafa El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Raaj Rafa El seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.* The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 petition 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 Rafa El has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
* Although Rafa El noted his appeal after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period
in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), we conclude that we have jurisdiction over his appeal
because the district court’s order explaining its reasons for dismissal was not accompanied
by a separate document setting forth the court’s judgment, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
58(a). See Hughes v. Halifax Cty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1987). Thus, the
district court’s order was deemed entered, for purposes of Rule 4(a), 150 days after the date
of entry on the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --