US v. Marcus Williams

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:07-cr-00259-FL-2, 5:15-cv-00408-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999720985]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-7372]

Appeal: 15-7372

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00259-FL-2; 5:15-cv-00408-FL)

Submitted:

December 15, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 18, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Jane J. Jackson,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Michael Gordon James, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7372

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Marcus Robert Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

motion.
judge

as

successive

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

his

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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
Williams 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: 15-7372

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 12/18/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3