United States v. James Arbaugh

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6048 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7186 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES DANIEL ARBAUGH, Defendant - Appellant. No. 24-6048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES DANIEL ARBAUGH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cr-00025-EKD-1; 5:21-cv- 81482-EKD-JCH) Submitted: May 29, 2025 Decided: July 18, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6048 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 4 Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Daniel Arbaugh, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Michael Welsh, Special United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6048 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/18/2025 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, James Daniel Arbaugh seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings and his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Arbaugh’s informal briefs, we conclude that Arbaugh has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6048 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/18/2025 Pg: 4 of 4 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 4