US v. Jesse Davison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999660672-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00632-MJG-1, 1:14-cv-00910-MJG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999762174]. Mailed to: J. Davison. [15-7202]

Appeal: 15-7202

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7202

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSE AARON DAVISON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00632-MJG-1; 1:14-cv-00910-MJG)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Aaron Davison, Appellant Pro Se.
Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Kristi Noel
O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7202

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jesse Aaron Davison seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
his motion for reconsideration.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The orders are not appealable
judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Davison has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Davison’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 15-7202

Doc: 13

materials

before

Filed: 02/25/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3