UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6578
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEITH A. DAVIS, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-6581
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEITH A. DAVIS, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1; 3:13-cv-02591-MBS)
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Keith A. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and its order
denying his motion for recusal. 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 record and conclude that
Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We deny
Davis’ motions for a transcript at government expense and to
appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4