US v. Davis
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRYANT ELLIOTT DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:03-cr-00412-WDQ)
Submitted: October 31, 2006
November 8, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryant Elliott Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Bryant Elliot Davis seeks to appeal the district court's June 26, 2006 order dismissing without prejudice his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion filed on May 30, 2006. not appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is issues a A
certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).
certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by 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 We dispense with oral
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?