US v. Williamson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:02-cr-00324-HMH)
April 19, 2007
April 25, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court's oral order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion filed in his underlying 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
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 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 Williamson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williamson's motion for a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Williamson's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. Winestock, 340
In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 2 -
based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable establish by by due diligence, and that would be sufficient that, but to for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. (2000). criteria. Williamson's claims do 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 not satisfy either of these
Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive
§ 2255 motion. 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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?