UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:98-cr-00047-1; 3:11-cv-00468; 3:99-cv-
00149; 3:00-cv-00647)
Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014
Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven
Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West
Virginia; Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States
Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief in three 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
actions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 records and
conclude that Spotts has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny the motions to suspend and to place in
abeyance, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3