US v. Cobey Webb
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
May 14, 2010
May 20, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cobey Daron Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Appellee.
Ray Wolthuis, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack,
We have independently reviewed the record 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
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?