United States of America v. Yasir Qahtan Saud

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6712
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YASIR QAHTAN SAUD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:21-cr-00041-RAJ-RJK-
1)
Submitted: November 26, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024
Before WYNN, THACKER, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yasir Qahtan Saud, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yasir Qahtan Saud seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it as untimely. 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)). As a threshold matter, contrary
to Saud’s asserting on appeal, we discern no error in the district court’s decision to construe
Saud’s motion as a § 2255 motion.1 Accordingly, the district court’s order 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 Saud has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
1 The district court did not give Saud notice and opportunity to respond to the court’s
recharacterization prior to construing his motion as an initial § 2255 motion. See Castro
v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). However, any potential error was ultimately
harmless, as Saud had already missed the one-year deadline to file a § 2255 motion. 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f), and he has not stated sufficient grounds to warrant equitable tolling.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
appeal.2 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 Saud has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order denying his motions
to produce documents and for judicial notice by failing to adequately challenge the order
on appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)
(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is
limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

-- 3 of 3 --