Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Read DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-29
Citations: 238 F. App'x 960
Docket Number: No. 07-6539
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Read DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 238
Pages: 960–961

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Read DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6539.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 23, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 29, 2007.
James Read Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Read Davis seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and 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) (2000). 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) (2000). 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.