US v. William Kemph

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:06-cr-00159-JBF-JEB-1,2:10-cv-00077-JBF Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998582455]. Mailed to: Kemph. [11-6292]

Appeal: 11-6292

Document: 10

Date Filed: 05/04/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM TIMOTHY KEMPH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Jerome B. Friedman, Senior
District Judge. (2:06-cr-00159-JBF-JEB-1; 2:10-cv-00077-JBF)

Submitted:

April 28, 2011

Decided:

May 4, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Timothy Kemph, Appellant Pro Se.
Sherrie Scott
Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6292

Document: 10

Date Filed: 05/04/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William

Timothy

Kemph

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2010)

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

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
Kemph

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

Appeal: 11-6292

before

Document: 10

the

court

Date Filed: 05/04/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3