UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7357
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: April 2, 2012 Decided: April 11, 2012
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kamal Majeid Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Steve R.
Matheny, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kamal Majeid Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e). These orders, which derive from the denial of
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion, are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 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 Webb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
although we grant Webb’s motion to amend his motion for a
certificate of appealability, we deny the motion for a
2
certificate of appealability, as amended, and dismiss the
appeal. 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
3