United States v. Williams , 289 F. App'x 663 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6404
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RICHARD LYNN WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (5:01-cr-00012-RLV-1; 5:06-cv-00131-RLV)
    Submitted:     August 21, 2008                 Decided:   August 26, 2008
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard Lynn Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Tullidge Cullen,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard   Lynn   Williams     seeks     to    appeal   the    district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.
    The order is 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   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 Williams has
    not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6404

Citation Numbers: 289 F. App'x 663

Judges: Duncan, King, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 8/26/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023