US v. Franesiour Kemache-Webster

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cr-00654-RWT-1,8:14-cv-02005-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999659076]. Mailed to: Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster. [15-6844]

Appeal: 15-6844

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6844

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANESIOUR B. KEMACHE-WEBSTER, a/k/a Bryan Webster,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:10-cr-00654-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-02005-RWT)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster, Appellant Pro Se.
Kristi Noel
O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6844

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

denying

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

relief

“a

on

of

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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
Kemache-Webster

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: 15-6844

before

Doc: 13

this

court

Filed: 09/14/2015

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3