Thomas Davis v. Attorney General of Maryland, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsThomas Davis v. Attorney General of Maryland, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7222
THOMAS DAVIS, a/k/a Thomas Edwards,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SHEARIN, Warden,
OF
THE
STATE
OF
MARYLAND;
BOBBY
Respondents Appellees
and
JOHN ROWLEY,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:08-cv-03453-AW)
Submitted:
November 19, 2013
Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.
FLOYD,
Circuit
Decided: November 22, 2013
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas
Davis
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
courts
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate the
district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254
(2006)
petition.
Davis
has
unsuccessfully
conviction in a true 2254 petition.
challenged
his
Because Daviss 60(b)
motion was a successive and unauthorized 2254 petition, see In
re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997), the district court
was
obligated
to
dismiss
the
motion,
see
United
States
v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003), and the order is
not
appealable
unless
circuit
certificate of appealability.
justice
or
judge
issues
28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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) (2006).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
debatable
merits,
that
courts
or
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
When the district court denies
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
is
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 petition states a debatable
2
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.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
