Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07357/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07357-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Quentin Dwayne McNebb
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

QUENTIN DWAYNE MCNEBB, a/k/a QB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:12-cr-00001-JLK-4; 4:14-cv-80709-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quentin Dwayne McNebb, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Ashley Brooke Neese, Laura Day 

Rottenborn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7357 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Quentin Dwayne McNebb 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 McNebb 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: 14-7357 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2015 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: 14-7357 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3