Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08127/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08127-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Edward Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8127

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHN EDWARD DAVIS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

District Judge. (7:06-cr-00055-jct-mfu-1; 7:08-cv-80093-jctmfu)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Edward Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8127 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/23/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

John Edward Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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). 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 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8127 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/23/2010 Pg: 2 of 2