US v. Roger Day, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00154-JAG-3, 3:14-cv-00305-JAG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999927932]. [16-6118, 16-6478]

Appeal: 16-6118

Doc: 21

Filed: 09/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6118

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-6478

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00154-JAG-3; 3:14-cv-00305-JAG)

Submitted:

August 30, 2016

Decided:

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

September 13, 2016

Appeal: 16-6118

Doc: 21

Filed: 09/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Charles Day, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Scott Faulconer,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Laura
Colombell Marshall, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6118

Doc: 21

Filed: 09/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Roger Charles Day, Jr.,

seeks

to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

reconsideration.

motion

and

denying

his

motion

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

for

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C.

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

(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
Day has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3

Appeal: 16-6118

Doc: 21

adequately

Filed: 09/13/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4