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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999672764]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6374]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6374 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6374 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM ANTHONY YOUNG, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?