US v. Shannon William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:02-cr-00085-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999499179]. Mailed to: Shannon Williams. [14-7381]

Appeal: 14-7381

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7381

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee,
v.
SHANNON DERRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doe,
Petitioner - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00085-JRS-1)

Submitted:

December 18, 2014

Decided:

December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
David Thomas
Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7381

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shannon Derrell Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

construing

his

petition

for

a

writ

of

audita

querela as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.

The district court’s 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: 14-7381

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 12/23/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3