Thomas Isbell v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999601773-2] Originating case number: 5:06-cr-00022-RLV-18, 5:12-cv-00042-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999737434]. Mailed to: Thomas Isbell. [15-6749]

Appeal: 15-6749

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6749

THOMAS JOSEPH ISBELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-18; 5:12-cv-00042RLV)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Joseph Isbell, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6749

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Joseph Isbell seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the
judgment.

The

justice

judge

or

orders

are

issues

a

not

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

unless

a

circuit

appealability.

28

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) (2012).

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Isbell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Isbell’s motion for 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: 15-6749

before

Doc: 14

this

court

Filed: 01/19/2016

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3