USCA4 Appeal: 21-7706 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA FREDERICK DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 21-7706

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA FREDERICK DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00381-RMG-1; 2:20-cv- 02053-RMG)

Submitted: November 29, 2022 Decided: December 7, 2022 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7706 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Frederick Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7706 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Frederick Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis,

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler,

(2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Davis’ motion for a certificate of

appealability, deny Davis’ motion to appoint counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3