US v. Webster Douglas Williams, III
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00969-RBH-1,4:17-cv-00350-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000303325]. Mailed to: Williams. [18-6182]
Appeal: 18-6182
Doc: 9
Filed: 05/30/2018
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6182
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WEBSTER DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00969-RBH-1; 4:17-cv-00350RBH)
Submitted: May 24, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Webster Douglas Williams, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Decided: May 30, 2018
Appeal: 18-6182
Doc: 9
Filed: 05/30/2018
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Webster Douglas Williams, III, 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.” 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 (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
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?