United States v. Fremandeus Williams , 589 F. App'x 154 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREMANDEUS C. WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00033-BO-1; 4:13-cv-00188-BO)
Submitted: December 30, 2014 Decided: January 6, 2015
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fremandeus C. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North
Carolina; Michael Gordon James, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fremandeus C. Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3