Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi v. BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6573
ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00214-MHL)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief
on Makdessi’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See
generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 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 Makdessi 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --