Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06478/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06478-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 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: September 13, 2016

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 16-6478 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6478 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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) motion and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. The orders are 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 

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 

Appeal: 16-6478 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6478 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 4 of 4