United States v. James Sidbury , 605 F. App'x 226 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES WESLEY SIDBURY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cr-00011-F-1; 7:13-cv-00171-F)
Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wesley Sidbury, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Wesley Sidbury seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief
on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Sidbury has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3