US v. Kamal Webb

Filing 920090917

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8192 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAMAL MAJEID WEBB, Defendant - Appellant.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) Submitted: September 1, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. denied. 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 standard demonstrating reasonable jurists 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 while we affirm for a the district of court's sentence motion reduction 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 3

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?