UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6951
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM JEFF ALMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00184-D-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Jeff Almond, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Jeff Almond seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006)
motion and petition for a writ of coram nobis. * The order 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.”
Id. § 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 Almond has not made the requisite showing. Almond raises
*
The district court properly concluded that the limited
remedy of coram nobis was not available to Almond. See United
States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012).
2
an unresolved question in this circuit whether § 2255 bars a
prisoner from filing a second habeas petition when intervening
precedent has vindicated the argument rejected in the prisoner’s
first habeas petition. See Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d
1293 (11th Cir. 2011). In light of the posture of this case,
however, we need not and do not reach that question.
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
3