US v. Keith Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999587345-2] in 15-6578; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999587344-2] in 15-6578 Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1,3:13-cv-02591-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999607516]. Mailed to: Keith A. Davis. [15-6578, 15-6581]

Appeal: 15-6578

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEITH A. DAVIS, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-6581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEITH A. DAVIS, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1; 3:13-cv-02591-MBS)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

June 23, 2015

Appeal: 15-6578

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6578

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Keith A. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and its order
denying his motion for recusal.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The orders are not appealable
judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

certificate

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003). 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 appeals.

We deny

Davis’ motions for a transcript at government expense and to
appoint counsel.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

Appeal: 15-6578

before

Doc: 11

this

court

Filed: 06/23/2015

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

4