Court Opinion

ID: 1020960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:59:06.019339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:56.056575
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-6926

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

EARL EDWARD WEBB,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037; 5:00-cv-00061-F)

Submitted: October 31, 2006                 Decided:   November 6, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Edward Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Earl Edward Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).          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)   (2000).   A   prisoner   satisfies      this   standard    by

demonstrating    that   reasonable     jurists   would     find   that     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.        Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.      Webb’s motion to supplement

the record on appeal is denied.        We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                 - 2 -