US v. Kelvin Spotts, No. 12-7568 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:98-cr-00047-1; 3:12-cv-00354) Submitted: July 23, 2013 Decided: August 6, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Spotts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motions for remand, for stay of the proceedings, and for recall of the mandate in No. 99-4121. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
