UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
3