US v. Keith Davis, No. 15-6578 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. KEITH A. DAVIS, a/k/a Black, Defendant -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: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. June 23, 2015 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Keith A. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and its order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. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The orders are not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 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 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
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.
