United States v. Davis ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7990
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HARVEY LEE DAVIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-SGW; 7:04-cv-00255-SGW)
    Submitted:   March 22, 2007                 Decided:   March 29, 2007
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Harvey Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Harvey Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
    of the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.   The order is not appealable unless a circuit
    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
    , 369 (4th Cir.
    2004).   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   any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.      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
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).      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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7990

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Widener, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 3/29/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024