US v. Issac William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00111-TDS-1,1:13-cv-00326-TDS-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999837004]. Mailed to: Issac Williams. [16-6058]

Appeal: 16-6058

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISSAC LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00111-TDS-1; 1:13-cv-00326-TDS-LPA)

Submitted:

May 19, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Issac Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison
Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina; Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6058

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Issac Lamont Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 (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 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. We dispense
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
2