Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07041/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07041-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel L. Spence
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7041

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANIEL L. SPENCE, a/k/a Daniel L. Johnson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:98-cr-00034-WDQ-1; 1:14-cv-01310-WDQ)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel L. Spence, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7041 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel L. Spence seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders construing his self-styled “Request for Judicial Notice 

of Adjudicative Facts” as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction, 

and denying Spence’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or 

amend judgment. 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 Spence has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

Appeal: 14-7041 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 14-7041 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3