Court Opinion

ID: 1023798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:43:23.276999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:37.548220
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-6841

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

BRYANT ELLIOTT DAVIS, a/k/a Joseph Butler,
a/k/a Bryant Davidson,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:03-cr-00412-WDQ; 1:07-cv-01018-WDQ)

Submitted:   September 13, 2007       Decided:   September 19, 2007

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Elliott Davis, Appellant Pro Se.   Richard Charles Kay,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Bryan Elliot Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion, which the

district court properly construed as an unauthorized successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.       The order is 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 (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

                                    - 2 -