US v. Michael William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00162-BR-1,5:12-cv-00032-BR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998948050]. Mailed to: Michael Williams, Deborah Shandles. [12-6597]

Appeal: 12-6597

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/28/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL DOUGHTY WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00162-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00032-BR)

Submitted:

August 31, 2012

Decided:

September 28, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Doughty Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Edward D. Gray,
Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Deborah Shandles, WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6597

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/28/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Doughty Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

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)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-6597

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/28/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3