Williams v. United States of America
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 08/07/2014. Copy mailed to Plaintiff on 8/7/2014.(tjoh, )
E LLi
A'JG -7 2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Richmond Division
RICHMOND, VA
GARY B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:14CV507-HEH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion)
Gary B. Williams, a state inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence ("§ 2255 Motion," ECF
No. 1.) The pertinent portion of that statute provides:
A prisoner in custody under sentence ofa court established by Act of
Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the
sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or
that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is
otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed
the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). In his § 2255 Motion, Williams seeks to
challenge his convictions for aggravated malicious wounding and wounding in the
commission of a felony. (§ 2255 Mot. \ 4.) Such convictions occurred in the Circuit
Court of the City of Suffolk, Virginia. See Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:13CV276-HEH,
2014 WL 3640344, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 22, 2014). Accordingly, Williams's § 2255
Motion is frivolous and will be denied. The action will be dismissed.
\zJ
,
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a
judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA
will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when
"reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). Williams
has not satisfied this standard. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
An appropriate Final Order will follow.
Alcd"""'
Date: f[y$ *j\ 24>l*f
Richmond, Virginia
/s/
HENRY E. HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?