US v. Clifford Laihben

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999577537-2] Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00039-CCE-1,1:13-cv-00914-CCE-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999626950]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-6528]

Appeal: 15-6528

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLIFFORD LAIHBEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00039-CCE-1; 1:13-cv-00914-CCE-JLW)

Submitted:

July 21, 2015

Decided:

July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford Laihben, Appellant Pro Se.
Frank Joseph Chut, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Terri-Lei O’Malley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6528

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clifford Laihben seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 (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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Laihben has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

of

appealability,

deny

Accordingly, we deny

Laihben’s

motion

for

transcript at government expense, and dismiss the appeal.

a
We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

2

Appeal: 15-6528

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3