US v. William Young
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6374]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
September 29, 2015
October 6, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Anthony Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
William Anthony Young seeks to appeal the district court’s
unauthorized and successive, and denying Young’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment.
certificate of appealability.
The orders are
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
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.
Pg: 3 of 3
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?