US v. Arthur Williamson, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 8:02-cr-00324-HMH-1, 8:15-cv-01094-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999693461]. Mailed to: Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr. [15-6692]

Appeal: 15-6692

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6692

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR., a/k/a Fast Eddie,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:02-cr-00324-HMH-1; 8:15-cv-01094-HMH)

Submitted:

October 28, 2015

Decided:

November 5, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Alan Lance
Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6692

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Arthur

Williamson,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion and denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e).
justice

or

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

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
Williamson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-6692

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 11/05/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3