Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Elijah DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-15
Citations: 388 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 09-6949
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Elijah DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 262–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Elijah DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6949.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 28, 2010.
Decided: July 15, 2010.
Barry Elijah Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barry Elijah Davis seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 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). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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.