William Davis, Jr. v. State of North Carolina

Filing 920100126

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6650

WILLIAM HENCELY DAVIS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; D.G. WOOD, Superintendent; WALLACE W. DIXON, Magistrate Judge; FRANK W. BULLOCK, JR., Judge; N. CARLTON TILLEY, Judge, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00706-TDS-PTS)

Submitted:

January 19, 2010

Decided:

January 26, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Hencely Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: William Hencely Davis, Jr., filed a pleading seeking both coram nobis relief from his state conviction as well as Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's and denied relief. To the extent that Davis

recommendation

sought to challenge his conviction, the district court found that his pleading was a successive § 2254 petition and dismissed it on that basis. The court also found that Davis was not Davis seeks to appeal.

entitled to relief under Rule 60.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); 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." this 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies jurists would

standard

reasonable

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 record (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently not made reviewed the the

conclude

Davis 2

has

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We also deny Davis' motions to amend or We dispense

and dismiss the appeal.

correct the caption and for appointment of counsel.

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