Court Opinion

ID: 9556846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 21:00:29.959505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:14.182833
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7661      Doc: 31         Filed: 08/17/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-7661

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        PHILIP MICHAEL SEBOLT,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge; John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District
        Judge. (3:12-cr-00033-JAG-EWH-1; 3:16-cv-00835-JAG-RCY)

        Submitted: March 23, 2023                                         Decided: August 17, 2023

        Before GREGORY, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Philip Michael Sebolt, Appellant Pro Se. Heather Hart Mansfield, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7661         Doc: 31       Filed: 08/17/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Philip Michael Sebolt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

        28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

        issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.

        Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sebolt 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 before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                         DISMISSED

                                                      2