Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07441/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07441-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Allen Day
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DAVID ALLEN DAY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (5:02-cr-30064-jct-mfu-1; 7:07-cv-00376-jct-mfu) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David Allen Day, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7441 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM: 

David Allen Day seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying his 

previous motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The 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). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 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 appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

2 

Appeal: 09-7441 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7441 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2010 Pg: 3 of 3