United States v. Davis , 157 F. App'x 658 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6873
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DANIEL PROFIT DAVIS, a/k/a      Daniel   Prophet
    Davis, a/k/a Proffit Davis,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-01-444; CA-04-266-1)
    Submitted:   November 4, 2005            Decided:   December 12, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Daniel Profit Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Profit Davis appeals the district court’s order
    denying his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.                           The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.              
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).             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)   (2000).         A    prisoner   satisfies      this   standard     by
    demonstrating      that    reasonable        jurists     would     find    that     his
    constitutional      claims       are   debatable   and    that    any     dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).                We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude Davis has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal.    We also deny Davis’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
    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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6873

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 658

Filed Date: 12/12/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014