United States of America v. Humaira Iqbal

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7229
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HUMAIRA IQBAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00118-CMH-2; 1:21-cv-
00354-CMH)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Frederick Gould, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Humaira Iqbal seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, see Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th Cir.
2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of
limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(f)), and denying relief on her alternative requests for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
and a writ of coram nobis. The order denying § 2255 relief is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Iqbal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the district court’s denial of Iqbal’s § 2255
motion.
Turning to the alternative requests for relief under § 2241 and coram nobis, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm that part of the
district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --