Webb v. Godfrey

Full title: NATHANIEL R. WEBB, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN GODFREY, Respondent …

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jul 25, 2023

No. 23-6261 (4th Cir. Jul. 25, 2023)

Opinion

23-6261

07-25-2023

NATHANIEL R. WEBB, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN GODFREY, Respondent - Appellee.

Nathaniel R. Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: July 20, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02144-D)

Nathaniel R. Webb, Appellant Pro Se.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel R. Webb seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb 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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.