United States of America v. James Daniel Arbaugh

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES DANIEL ARBAUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 24-6048
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES DANIEL ARBAUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cr-00025-EKD-1; 5:21-cv-
81482-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: May 29, 2025 Decided: July 18, 2025

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Daniel Arbaugh, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Michael Welsh, Special United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, James Daniel Arbaugh seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings and his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion and the order denying his motion for 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Arbaugh’s informal briefs,
we conclude that Arbaugh has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see
also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an
important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved
in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --