US v. Kamal Webb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to amend/correct [998807908-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998721926-2] Originating case number: 5:04-cr-00294-F-1,5:08-cv-00154-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998830236]. Mailed to: Kamal Webb. [11-7357]

Appeal: 11-7357

Document: 15

Date Filed: 04/11/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7357

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:

April 2, 2012

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

April 11, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kamal Majeid Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Steve R.
Matheny, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7357

Document: 15

Date Filed: 04/11/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kamal Majeid Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e).

These orders, which derive from the denial of

his

§ 2255

28

U.S.C.A.

appealable

unless

certificate

of

(2006).

a

(West

Supp.

circuit

2011)

justice

appealability.

See

28

motion,

or

judge

U.S.C.

are

not

issues

a

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Webb
although

has
we

certificate

not

grant
of

made

the

Webb’s

requisite

motion

appealability,

to

we
2

showing.

amend
deny

his
the

Accordingly,
motion
motion

for
for

a
a

Appeal: 11-7357

Document: 15

certificate
appeal.
legal
before

of

Date Filed: 04/11/2012

appealability,

as

Page: 3 of 3

amended,

and

dismiss

the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3