UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT HENRY DAVIS, a/k/a Pops,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:00-
cr-00424; 8:04-cv-3291)
Submitted: June 13, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Henry Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying in part and granting in part his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion, and denying his application for a certificate
of appealability.* The district court’s orders on Davis’s Rule
60(b)(6) motion are not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684-85 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
*
We note that to the extent Davis seeks to appeal the district
court’s September 30, 2005 order denying his § 2255 motion, his
December 5, 2006 notice of appeal is untimely as to that order.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -