Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07534/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07534-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7534

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KEITH ORBIE JAMES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00190-NCT-3; 

1:12-cv-00818-NCT-JLW)

Submitted: February 19, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016

Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Orbie James, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kyle 

David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7534 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Orbie James seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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 

James 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 

Appeal: 15-7534 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7534 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 3 of 3