US v. Kelvin Spott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999325637-2]; denying Motion to suspend [999357098-2]. Originating case numbers: 3:98-cr-00047-1, 3:11-cv-00468, 3:99-cv-00149, 3:00-cv-00647. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999408183]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-6218]

Appeal: 14-6218

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:98-cr-00047-1; 3:11-cv-00468; 3:99-cv00149; 3:00-cv-00647)

Submitted:

July 30, 2014

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 1, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven
Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West
Virginia; Richard
Gregory
McVey,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6218

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kelvin

Andre

Spotts

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders denying relief in three 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
actions.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

or

issues

judge

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We
conclude

that

have

independently

Spotts

has

not

reviewed
made

the

the

records

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We deny the motions to suspend and to place in

abeyance, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2

Appeal: 14-6218

before

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/01/2014

the

and

court

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3