Court Opinion

ID: 3170468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-19 20:00:47.63782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:03.696036
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-6749

THOMAS JOSEPH ISBELL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.         Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-18; 5:12-cv-00042-
RLV)

Submitted:   January 14, 2016             Decided:   January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Joseph Isbell, Appellant Pro Se.      Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Thomas Joseph Isbell 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

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

Isbell’s motion for 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

                                              2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3