United States v. Jerome Davis

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6292 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEROME DAVIS, a/k/a Jerome Salathiel Davis, a/k/a Rome,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:19-cr-00183-FL-1; 7:23-cv-00177- FL)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6292 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Davis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district

court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Davis’ motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED