US v. William Small

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00008-MR-1,1:12-cv-00286-MR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999612868]. Mailed to: William Smalls. [14-7212]

Appeal: 14-7212

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM ISAAC SMALLS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00008-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00286-MR)

Submitted:

April 10, 2015

Decided:

July 1, 2015

Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Isaac Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7212

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Isaac Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. *

The

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

certificate

(2012).

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) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Smalls has not made the requisite showing.

*

Accordingly, we deny

This case has recently been returned to this court, after
a limited remand to the district court to determine the
timeliness of Smalls’ notice of appeal.
The district court
determined that Smalls’ notice of appeal was timely filed.

2

Appeal: 14-7212

a

Doc: 10

certificate

dispense

Filed: 07/01/2015

of

with

contentions

are

Pg: 3 of 3

appealability

oral

argument

adequately

and

dismiss

because

presented

in

the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3