UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6730
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JENNIFER MARIE DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-6731
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JENNIFER MARIE DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00452-MBS-3; 3:09-cv-70032-MBS; 3:06-cr-00858-
MBS-1; 3:09-cv-70033-MBS)
Submitted: April 14, 2011 Decided: April 22, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer Marie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley Duane Ragsdale,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Marie Davis seeks to appeal the district
court’s order and amended order denying relief on her 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). 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 record and
conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
these appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4