United States v. Davi ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-8127
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN EDWARD DAVIS,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.      James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge.   (7:06-cr-00055-jct-mfu-1; 7:08-cv-80093-jct-
    mfu)
    Submitted:   March 16, 2010                 Decided:   March 23, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Edward Davis, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald Ray Wolthuis,
    Assistant  United States  Attorney,  Roanoke,  Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    John Edward Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)
    motion.        The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues       a    certificate       of    appealability.           28     U.S.C.
    § 2253(c)(1) (2006).             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)      (2006).        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: 098127

Filed Date: 3/23/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021