United States v. Webb

332 F. App'x 80

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAMAL MAJEID WEBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00294-F-1; 5:08-cv-00154-F)

Submitted: September 1, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Michael Schad, SCHAD & SCHAD, Lebanon, Ohio, for Appellant. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Kamal Majeid Webb appeals the district court’s order

granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2009) motion. As to the order granting Webb’s § 3582(c)

motion, we conclude the district court reduced Webb’s sentence

by the maximum amount permitted. Webb’s request for a further

reduction was thus properly denied. See United States v.

Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009).

As to the order denying § 2255 relief, an appeal is

not permitted 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). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Webb has not made the requisite showing.

2 Accordingly, while we affirm the district court’s

order granting Webb’s motion for a reduction of sentence

pursuant to § 3582(c), we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal as to the order denying relief on Webb’s

§ 2255 motion. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART