UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6650
WILLIAM HENCELY DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; D.G. WOOD, Superintendent; WALLACE
W. DIXON, Magistrate Judge; FRANK W. BULLOCK, JR., Judge; N.
CARLTON TILLEY, Judge,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00706-TDS-PTS)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Hencely Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Hencely Davis, Jr., filed a pleading seeking
both coram nobis relief from his state conviction as well as
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and denied relief. To the extent that Davis
sought to challenge his conviction, the district court found
that his pleading was a successive § 2254 petition and dismissed
it on that basis. The court also found that Davis was not
entitled to relief under Rule 60. Davis seeks to appeal.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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). 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,
683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite
2
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Davis’ motions to amend or
correct the caption and for appointment of counsel. 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
3