US v. James Sidbury

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 7:12-cr-00011-F-1,7:13-cv-00171-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999611843]. Mailed to: James Wesley Sidbury. [15-6610]

Appeal: 15-6610

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES WESLEY SIDBURY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cr-00011-F-1; 7:13-cv-00171-F)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wesley Sidbury, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6610

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Wesley Sidbury 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.
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28

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

constitutional right.

a

debatable

claim

of

the

denial

of

a

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Sidbury has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 15-6610

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3