US v. William Petti

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:02-cr-30041-SGW-4,5:11-cv-80353-SGW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998751729]. Mailed to: William Pettis. [11-7155]

Appeal: 11-7155

Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/23/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM C. PETTIS, a/k/a Bobby,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:02-cr-30041-SGW-4; 5:11-cv-80353-SGW)

Submitted:

December 20, 2011

Decided:

December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Pettis, Appellant Pro Se.
Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7155

Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/23/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William C. Pettis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his “motion to discontinue sentence,”
which the court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2011) motion and dismissed it on that basis.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2006).

of

appealability.

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) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

the

484-85.

conclude

that

We

have

Pettis

independently
has

not

made

reviewed
the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny 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
2

Appeal: 11-7155

before

Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/23/2011

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3