US v. Kamal Webb
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAMAL MAJEID 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. (5:04-cr-00294-F-1; 5:08-cv-00154-F)
September 1, 2009
September 17, 2009
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Michael Schad, SCHAD & SCHAD, Lebanon, Ohio, for Appellant. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Kamal Majeid Webb appeals the district court's order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and seeks to appeal the district
court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. As to the order granting Webb's § 3582(c)
motion, we conclude the district court reduced Webb's sentence by the maximum amount permitted. reduction was thus properly Webb's request for a further See United States v.
Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009). As to the order denying § 2255 relief, an appeal is not permitted unless a circuit justice or judge issues a A "a
certificate of appealability. certificate of appealability
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this 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. 2
Accordingly, order granting Webb's
affirm for a
pursuant to § 3582(c), we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as to the order denying relief on Webb's § 2255 motion. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?