United States of America v. James Thomas Webb

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --