United States v. Davis , 338 F. App'x 350 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-6489
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LAWRENCE STAFFORD DAVIS, a/k/a Larry,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (4:06-cr-01317-TLW-1; 4:08-cv-70126-TLW)
    Submitted:    July 10, 2009                 Decided:   July 23, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lawrence Stafford Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard
    Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lawrence Stafford 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,           deny        Davis’s       motion         for
    appointment of counsel, 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: 09-6489

Citation Numbers: 338 F. App'x 350

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 7/23/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023