Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Lloyd Williams, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lloyd Anthonie Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of his §2255 motion as successive. The district court also denied Williams' request for a writ of error coram nobis. The appellate court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Williams did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented deserved encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Lloyd Williams, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lloyd Anthonie Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of his §2255 motion as successive. The district court also denied Williams' request for a writ of error coram nobis. The appellate court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Williams did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented deserved encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-04-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6180

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lloyd Anthonie Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of his §2255 motion as successive. The district court also denied Williams' request for a writ of error coram nobis. The appellate court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Williams did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented deserved encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    9 views3 pages

    United States v. Lloyd Williams, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lloyd Anthonie Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of his §2255 motion as successive. The district court also denied Williams' request for a writ of error coram nobis. The appellate court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Williams did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented deserved encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-6180

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LLOYD ANTHONIE WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (4:98-cr-00144-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00254-MR)

    Submitted:

    April 25, 2013

    Before AGEE and


    Circuit Judge.

    WYNN,

    Circuit

    Decided: April 30, 2013

    Judges,

    and

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lloyd Anthonie Williams, Appellant Pro Se.


    Melissa Louise
    Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
    Carolina; Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Lloyd Anthonie Williams seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying, as successive, his motion filed under 28
    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2012).

    The order, which also denied

    Williams a writ of error coram nobis as an alternative basis for


    relief, is
    issues

    not

    appealable

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
    issue

    absent

    unless
    of

    circuit

    justice

    appealability.

    or

    28

    judge
    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts 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.


    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument
    2

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like