Court Opinion

ID: 146852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-05-20 17:44:14+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:14.438342
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 09-7811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

COBEY DARON WEBB,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:09-cv-80174-gec-mfu; 7:05-cr-00102-gec-mfu-1)

Submitted:   May 14, 2010                    Decided:   May 20, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cobey Daron Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Donald           Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant United States  Attorney, Roanoke,          Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Cobey Daron Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2009) motion.           The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice   or     judge    issues    a    certificate       of    appealability.             28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).              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) (2006).                 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    Webb    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

                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3