Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06749/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06749-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Joseph Isbell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6749

THOMAS JOSEPH ISBELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-18; 5:12-cv-00042-

RLV)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Joseph Isbell, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6749 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Joseph Isbell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the 

judgment. The orders are 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

Isbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Isbell’s motion for 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 

Appeal: 15-6749 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6749 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3