US v. Kelvin Andre Spott
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:98-cr-00047-1,3:00-cv-00647 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Kelvin Andre Spotts UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY BEAUMONT P. O. Box 26030 Beaumont, TX 77720-6030. [16-6722]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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; 3:00-cv-00647)
September 30, 2016
October 14, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven
Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West
Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as 28 U.S.C.
will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Spotts has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.
Pg: 3 of 3
See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
208 (4th Cir. 2003).
In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Spotts’ claims do not satisfy either of
successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?