Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06844/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06844-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6844

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANESIOUR B. KEMACHE-WEBSTER, a/k/a Bryan Webster,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:10-cr-00654-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-02005-RWT)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Kristi Noel 

O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6844 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster 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 

Kemache-Webster 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 15-6844 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6844 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 3 of 3