US v. Francis Curtis Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00080-JAG-RCY-1,3:14-cv-00795-JAG-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000166581]. Mailed to: Davis. [17-6609]

Appeal: 17-6609

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6609

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCIS CURTIS DAVIS, a/k/a Abdul-Malik Lbnfrancis As-Salafi,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00080-JAG-RCY-1; 3:14-cv00795-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: October 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frances Curtis Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6609

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Francis Curtis Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED

2