US v. Jerry Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 6:03-cr-01092-HMH-11, 6:08-cv-70123-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999408111]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-6780]

Appeal: 14-6780

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRY DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:03-cr-01092-HMH-11; 6:08-cv-70123-HMH)

Submitted:

July 29, 2014

Decided:

August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Leesa Washington, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenville,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6780

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jerry
orders

Davis

denying

his

seeks
Fed.

to

appeal

R.

Civ.

the
P.

district

60(b)

court’s

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, denying his motion to take
judicial notice and denying his motion to alter and amend.
orders are
issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Davis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2

We

Appeal: 14-6780

Doc: 8

dispense

Filed: 08/01/2014

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3