AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-7611.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: December 21, 2006.
Decided: January 4, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00250-WMN; 1:06-cv-02239-WMN).

Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing Abdel-Aziz’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and then dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a

Page 217

certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) `that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) `that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.'” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slackv. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdel-Aziz has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

[*] To the extent Abdel-Aziz seeks to raise claims for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).