UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6729
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA JUSTON SEIBLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-7076
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA JUSTON SEIBLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00461-MBS-1; 3:13-cv-00712-MBS)
Submitted: August 26, 2013 Decided: September 18, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Joshua Juston Seibles, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Juston Seibles seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) motion, denying his motion to set aside his criminal
judgment, and denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The order denying Seibles’ § 2255 motion
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Seibles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of
3
the district court’s order denying habeas relief. Likewise, we
have reviewed the record and Seibles’ claims with regard to the
denial of his motions to set aside the criminal judgment and to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and find no
reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s
orders denying those motions. Finally, 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4