US v. William Smith
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00011-D-1,5:14-cv-00373-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999564904]. Mailed to: William Smith. [14-7505]
Appeal: 14-7505
Doc: 10
Filed: 04/15/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7505
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM TURNER SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:07-cr-00011-D-1; 5:14-cv-00373-D)
Submitted:
March 24, 2015
Decided:
April 15, 2015
Before KING, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Turner Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7505
Doc: 10
Filed: 04/15/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
William Turner Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
order
dismissing
successive.
justice
or
his
28
The
order
is
judge
issues
a
U.S.C.
not
§ 2255
appealable
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
(2012)
of
motion
unless
a
as
circuit
appealability.
28
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).
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
Smith has not made the requisite showing.
a
certificate
dispense
with
of
appealability
oral
argument
and
dismiss
because
2
Accordingly, we deny
the
the
appeal.
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 14-7505
Doc: 10
contentions
are
Filed: 04/15/2015
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?