United States v. Daniel Spence , 591 F. App'x 199 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL L. SPENCE, a/k/a Daniel L. Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:98-cr-00034-WDQ-1; 1:14-cv-01310-WDQ)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel L. Spence, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel L. Spence seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders construing his self-styled “Request for Judicial Notice
of Adjudicative Facts” as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction,
and denying Spence’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or
amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Spence has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
2
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