Court Opinion

ID: 1013594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:03:53.134822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:50.606984
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6595

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TIMOTHY EARL DAVIS, a/k/a Black,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern.   Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-99-27; CA-03-101-H)

Submitted:   June 24, 2004                  Decided:   July 2, 2004

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Earl Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Jane
J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Timothy Earl Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).    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

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

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

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

683 (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 -