US v. Richard F. Williams, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:08-cr-00101-FL-1,7:10-cv-00113-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999092576]. Mailed to: Richard Williams. [13-6285]

Appeal: 13-6285

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6285

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD F. WILLIAMS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00101-FL-1; 7:10-cv-00113-FL)

Submitted:

April 18, 2013

Decided:

April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard F. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. MayParker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6285

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Richard F. Williams, Jr., 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).
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

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2