US v. William Young

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motions to appoint/assign counsel [999552050-2], [999556323-2]. Originating case numbers: 3:02-cr-00216-CMC-1, 3:15-cv-00368-CMC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999672764]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6374]

Appeal: 15-6374

Doc: 18

Filed: 10/06/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6374

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM ANTHONY YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00216-CMC-1; 3:15-cv-00368-CMC)

Submitted:

September 29, 2015

Decided:

October 6, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Anthony Young, Appellant Pro Se.
William Kenneth
Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6374

Doc: 18

Filed: 10/06/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Anthony Young seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders

dismissing

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

motion

as

unauthorized and successive, and denying Young’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

The orders are

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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
Young has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny Young’s motions for the
appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.
2

We dispense

Appeal: 15-6374

Doc: 18

Filed: 10/06/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3