Court Opinion

ID: 4169162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-17 19:03:54.427913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:01.073940
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6075

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, Chief District Judge. (7:05-cr-00102-GEC-RSB-1; 7:16-cv-
81213-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: May 16, 2017                                           Decided: May 17, 2017

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion without prejudice as successive.             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 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 before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2