Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06286/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06286-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6286

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT HENRY DAVIS, a/k/a Pops,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:00-cr-00424-PJM-2; 8:09-cv-03250-PJM)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6286 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Henry Davis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a 

successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion, and dismissing it on that basis, and declining to issue 

a certificate of appealability. The district court’s order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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. 

Appeal: 10-6286 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Davis’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a successive § 2255

motion. 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 either: 

(1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by 

due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear 

and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the 

offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously 

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on 

collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2009). 

Davis’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. 

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 

motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6286 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3