United States v. Kenneth Davis ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7477
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KENNETH LOUIS DAVIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:02-cr-00552-LMB-1; 1:16-cv-00633-
    LMB)
    Submitted: December 17, 2019                                Decided: December 20, 2019
    Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth Louis Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Louis Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
    28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. See Buck v. Davis, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (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)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made
    the requisite showing. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-7477

Filed Date: 12/20/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2019