United States v. Donald Williams ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6106
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DONALD MCDUFFIN WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00165-GLR-1; 1:19-cv-02378-GLR)
    Submitted: August 12, 2020                                        Decided: August 14, 2020
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Donald McDuffin Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald McDuffin Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
    on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
    prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists could 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 Williams has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the
    motion for remand, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6106

Filed Date: 8/14/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2020