US v. Davis

Filing 920070710

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT HENRY DAVIS, a/k/a Pops, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:00cr-00424; 8:04-cv-3291)

Submitted:

June 13, 2007

Decided:

July 10, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Robert Henry Davis seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying in part and granting in part his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying his application for a certificate of appealability.* The district court's orders on Davis's Rule

60(b)(6) motion are 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 28

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that

A prisoner satisfies this standard by jurists would find that any

reasonable

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, 684-85 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a We dispense

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We note that to the extent Davis seeks to appeal the district court's September 30, 2005 order denying his § 2255 motion, his December 5, 2006 notice of appeal is untimely as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). - 2 -

*

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

- 3 -