Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06528/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06528-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clifford Laihben
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLIFFORD LAIHBEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00039-CCE-1; 1:13-cv-00914-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford Laihben, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Terri-Lei O’Malley, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6528 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Laihben 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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny Laihben’s motion for a 

transcript at government expense, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

Appeal: 15-6528 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6528 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3