Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06610/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06610-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Wesley Sidbury
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES WESLEY SIDBURY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:12-cr-00011-F-1; 7:13-cv-00171-F) 

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Wesley Sidbury, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-6610 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Wesley Sidbury seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order 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 

Sidbury 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: 15-6610 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/30/2015 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: 15-6610 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3