From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Davis

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Feb 19, 2015
593 F. App'x 236 (4th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-7843

02-19-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAWRENCE STAFFORD DAVIS, a/k/a Larry, Defendant - Appellant.

Lawrence Stafford Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Delay, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:06-cr-01317-TLW-1; 4:13-cv-02639-TLW) Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Stafford Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Delay, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Stafford Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

United States v. Davis

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Feb 19, 2015
593 F. App'x 236 (4th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAWRENCE STAFFORD…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 19, 2015

Citations

593 F. App'x 236 (4th Cir. 2015)