United States v. Webb

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6971
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE MCARTHUR WEBB, a/k/a Ted Paige,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:06-cr-00079-gec-mfu-2; 7:10-cv-80252-gec-mfu)
Submitted: September 21, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence McArthur Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence McArthur Webb seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). 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 Webb has not made the requisite showing. *
*
Although we agree with Webb that the district court’s
procedural ruling that his § 2255 motion was untimely is
erroneous, our careful review of the record leaves us with no
doubt that, on its merits, Webb’s motion fails to state a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We
accordingly deny a certificate of appealability on this basis.
2
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
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3