United States of America v. Daniel Profit Davis, a/k/a Daniel Prophet Davis, a/k/a Proffit Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL PROFIT DAVIS, a/k/a Daniel Prophet
Davis, a/k/a Proffit Davis,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-6244
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL PROFIT DAVIS, a/k/a Daniel Prophet
Davis, a/k/a Proffit Davis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-01-444; CA-04-266-1; CA-04-266)
Submitted: June 13, 2005 Decided: July 18, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Profit Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Daniel Profit Davis
appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and
the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to amend. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and the motions
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --