US v. Lacy Davis, III, No. 09-6056 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6056 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LACY DAVIS, III, a/k/a Lacey Davis, 3, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-6241 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LACY DAVIS, III, a/k/a Lacey Davis, 3, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:94-cr-00411-CMH-1; 1:05-cv-01425-CMH) Submitted: July 1, 2009 Decided: July 20, 2009 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacy Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Lacy Davis, III, seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The orders are 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 prisoner right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 U.S.C. this standard would claims § 2253(c)(2) by find the by that district any (2006). A demonstrating assessment court is that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. court dismissed successive, Davis s deficiencies § 2255 that motion an as amendment The district untimely could not and cure. Therefore, the district court did not have the discretion to grant the motion to amend. 427 (4th motions Cir. to futility). 2006) amend on See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, (explaining the bases district of courts prejudice, bad should faith, deny and Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 3 and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 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 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
