US v. Lloyd William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:98-cr-00144-MR-1,1:12-cv-00254-MR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999097920]. Mailed to: Lloyd Williams. [13-6180]

Appeal: 13-6180

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LLOYD ANTHONIE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (4:98-cr-00144-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00254-MR)

Submitted:

April 25, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided: April 30, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Anthonie Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Melissa Louise
Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6180

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lloyd Anthonie Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying, as successive, his motion filed under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012).

The order, which also denied

Williams a writ of error coram nobis as an alternative basis for
relief, is
issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 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: 13-6180

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 04/30/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3