US v. Kelvin Spotts, No. 14-6218 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6218 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty, Defendant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; 3:11-cv-00468; 3:99-cv00149; 3:00-cv-00647) Submitted: July 30, 2014 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 1, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying relief in three 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) actions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues judge a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We conclude that have independently Spotts has not reviewed made the the records requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motions to suspend and to place in abeyance, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the 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.
