United States v. William Smith ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6080
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM KINJO SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria.    Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.           (1:00-cr-00421-LMB-1;
    1:16-cv-00821-LMB)
    Submitted: April 19, 2018                                         Decided: April 24, 2018
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Kinjo Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William Kinjo Smith 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 Smith has not made
    the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Smith’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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6080

Filed Date: 4/24/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/24/2018