Opinion
No. 14-6218
08-01-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty, Defendant - Appellant.
Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia; Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:98-cr-00047-1; 3:11-cv-00468; 3:99-cv-00149; 3:00-cv-00647) Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia; Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief in three 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) actions. The orders are 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 records and conclude that Spotts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motions to suspend and to place in abeyance, and 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