Scribd
Upload
26 views2 pages

United States v. Davis, 4th Cir. (2003)

Charlie Lee Davis appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Davis did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that dispositive procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The court also found that Davis waived any issues raised for the first time on appeal that were not properly presented to the district court.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
26 views2 pages

United States v. Davis, 4th Cir. (2003)

Charlie Lee Davis appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Davis did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that dispositive procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The court also found that Davis waived any issues raised for the first time on appeal that were not properly presented to the district court.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLIE LEE DAVIS, a/k/a Chuck,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-97-4, CA-01-169)

Submitted:

October 23, 2003

Decided:

October 31, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Charlie Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district courts order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

Davis cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a


certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas

appellant meets 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,

, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (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 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

To the extent Davis seeks to raise for the first time on


appeal issues not properly presented to the district court, we find
that they are waived. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993).
2

You might also like