United States v. James Webb ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6540 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6540
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THOMAS WEBB,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-6095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THOMAS WEBB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00301-D-1; 5:17-cv-00081-D)
Submitted: June 1, 2022 Decided: July 22, 2022
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6540 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Thomas Webb, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6540 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
James Thomas Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion
for a certificate of appealability and denying his motion for relief from the district court’s
prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The orders are not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B);
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 showing 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 show 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 Webb has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny his motion
for judicial notice, and dismiss the appeals. 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
3