United States v. James Webb ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6771
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES THOMAS WEBB,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal 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: March 10, 2021                                         Decided: March 17, 2021
    Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Thomas Webb, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Thomas Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
    his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 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 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 the
    pending motion, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6771

Filed Date: 3/17/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/17/2021