US v. Willie William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00112-TSE-1,1:11-cv-00220-TSE Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998787718]. Mailed to: Williams and Pachon. [11-7162]

Appeal: 11-7162

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/14/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIE BRIAN WILLIAMS,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00112-TSE-1; 1:11-cv-00220-TSE)

Submitted:

February 9, 2012

Decided:

February 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Brian Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Jackson Allen,
Marc Harry Pachon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jack
Hanly, Assistant United States Attorney, Jeffrey L. Shih,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7162

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/14/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Willie

Brian

Williams

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing his unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion for lack of jurisdiction.

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

is

473,

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

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

Williams

independently
has

not

reviewed

made

the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Williams’s notice of appeal
and

informal

brief

as

an

application
2

to

file

a

second

or

Appeal: 11-7162

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/14/2012

Page: 3 of 3

successive § 2255 motion.

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).

In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no
reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the
offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral review.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h)(1)-(2).

claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Williams’s

Therefore, we

deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3