United States v. Constanzus Williams , 589 F. App'x 133 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7210
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    CONSTANZUS MARCEL WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (6:07-cr-00270-GRA-2; 6:14-cv-00145-GRA)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2014              Decided:   December 30, 2014
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Constanzus Marcel Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean
    Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Constanzus       Marcel          Williams     seeks      to     appeal    the
    district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2012) motion.           The order is not appealable unless a circuit
    justice    or    judge    issues    a   certificate          of   appealability.       28
    U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).                    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) (2012).                When the
    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
    this    standard    by    demonstrating           that   reasonable       jurists    would
    find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
    claims is debatable or wrong.                 Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484    (2000);   see     Miller-El      v.    Cockrell,       
    537 U.S. 322
    ,    336-38
    (2003).     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.                            
    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85
    .
    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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7210

Citation Numbers: 589 F. App'x 133

Filed Date: 12/30/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023