United States of America v. Joshua Frederick Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7112
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA FREDERICK DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-7706
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA FREDERICK DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00381-RMG-1; 2:20-cv-
02053-RMG)
Submitted: November 29, 2022 Decided: December 7, 2022

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Frederick Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Frederick Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The orders are 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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, deny Davis’ motion to appoint counsel 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

-- 3 of 3 --