United States v. Webb

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Webb, 366 F. App'x 464 (4th Cir. 2010)

United States v. Webb

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEON J. WEBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00012-FPS-JES-1; 5:07-cv-00027-FPS-JES)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deon J. Webb, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Deon J. Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2009)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000);

Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84

(4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished