Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Travis Davidson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Travis Leon Davidson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, which requires a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Davidson did not make this requisite showing. While allowing Davidson to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also denied Davidson's motions to appoint counsel and for remand.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6555

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Travis Leon Davidson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, which requires a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Davidson did not make this requisite showing. While allowing Davidson to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also denied Davidson's motions to appoint counsel and for remand.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views3 pages

    United States v. Travis Davidson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Travis Leon Davidson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, which requires a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Davidson did not make this requisite showing. While allowing Davidson to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also denied Davidson's motions to appoint counsel and for remand.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6555

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    TRAVIS LEON DAVIDSON,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (3:08-cr-00885-JFA-1; 3:10-cv-70222-JFA)

    Submitted:

    June 16, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER and


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    GREGORY,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    June 21, 2011

    and

    HAMILTON,

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Travis Leon Davidson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Dean A. Eichelberger,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Travis
    courts

    order

    Leon

    Davidson

    denying

    seeks

    relief

    (West Supp. 2010) motion.

    on

    to

    appeal

    his

    28

    the

    district

    U.S.C.A.

    2255

    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 courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.
    484

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    v.

    Cockrell,

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record

    and conclude that Davidson has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly,

    although

    we

    grant

    leave

    to

    proceed

    in

    forma

    pauperis on appeal, we deny a certificate of appealability and


    dismiss

    the

    appeal.

    counsel

    and

    his

    We

    motion

    deny
    for

    Davidsons

    remand.

    We

    motions
    dispense

    to

    appoint

    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

    You might also like