US v. Joshua Seibles, No. 13-6729 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6729 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSHUA JUSTON SEIBLES, Defendant -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 Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Joshua Juston Seibles seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)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. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable 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 reversible lack error. of subject We matter therefore orders denying those motions. jurisdiction affirm the and district find no court s 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
