United States of America v. LACY DAVIS, III, a/k/a Lacey Davis, 3

UNPUBLISHED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.

-- 1 of 4 --

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

-- 2 of 4 --

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 right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is 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. The district
court dismissed Davis’s § 2255 motion as untimely and
successive, deficiencies that an amendment could not cure.
Therefore, the district court did not have the discretion to
grant the motion to amend. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404,
427 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining district courts should deny
motions to amend on the bases of prejudice, bad faith, and
futility). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 of 4 --