US v. Deshawn Anderson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00414-JCC-2,1:14-cv-00364-JCC,1:09-cr-00414-JCC-3,1:14-cv-00060-JCC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999726219]. Mailed to: Deshawn Anderson SUSSEX II STATE PRISON 24427 Musselwhite Drive Waverly, VA 23891-2222 Marvin Wayne Williams Jr. UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY P. O. Box 1000 Lewisburg, PA 17837-0000. [15-6670]

Appeal: 15-6670

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6670

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DESHAWN ANDERSON, a/k/a Buddha; MARVIN WAYNE WILLIAMS, JR.,
a/k/a Lil Wayne,
Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00414-JCC-2; 1:14-cv-00364-JCC; 1:09cr-00414-JCC-3; 1:14-cv-00060-JCC)

Submitted:

September 30, 2015

Decided:

December 29, 2015

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deshawn Anderson, Marvin Wayne Williams, Jr., Appellants Pro Se.
Michael Phillip Ben’Ary, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6670

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Deshawn

Anderson

and

Marvin

Wayne

Williams,

Jr.,

(Appellants) seek to appeal the district court’s orders denying
relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

The orders are
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.
Appellants complain that the district court denied their
postjudgment motion to amend their action to include a claim
pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).

The

Miller claim was raised more than one year after Appellants’
convictions became final.

See United States v. Segers, 271 F.3d
2

Appeal: 15-6670

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/29/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

181, 186 (4th Cir. 2001) (conviction becomes final once Supreme
Court denies petition for certiorari).

As the Miller claim does

not arise from the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” in
the original pleading, it does not relate back to the date of
the

original

pleading.

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

15(c)(1)(B);

United

States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 318 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding
new claim must be of same “time and type” as original claims).
Because leave to amend may be denied when the proposed claim
would be time-barred, Pittman, 209 F.3d at 317, we conclude that
any error by the district court was harmless, as the motion
would have been denied under Rule 15(c). *
We

have

independently

that Appellants

have

not

reviewed
made

the

the

records

requisite

issuance of a certificate of appealability.

and

conclude

showing

for

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

arguments

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

the

facts

and

materials

We

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
*

This Court has held that the rule in Miller is not
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Johnson
v. Ponton, 780 F.3d 219, 224-26 (4th Cir. 2015).
Thus, the
delayed commencement date for the statute of limitations in
§ 2255(f)(3) is not applicable.

3