United States v. Rodney Williamson ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7464
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY ANTON WILLIAMSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00474-NCT-1; 1:14-
cv-00870-NCT-JLW)
Submitted: April 2, 2020 Decided: April 22, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Anton Williamson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Anton Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Williamson’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2018) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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, 565 U.S. 134,
140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williamson’s motion for 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2