United States v. Williams , 294 F. App'x 63 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6468
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    THOMAS WILLIAMS, a/k/a Q, aka Paul Ralph Scott, a/k/a Warren
    Brown, a/k/a Professor,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:02-cr-00387-JRS-1; 3:06-cv-00074-JRS)
    Submitted:   September 16, 2008         Decided:   September 19, 2008
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.                  The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.        
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).            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)   (2000).   A   prisoner     satisfies      this   standard    by
    demonstrating    that   reasonable       jurists   would     find   that     any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.          Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6468

Citation Numbers: 294 F. App'x 63

Judges: Motz, Traxler, Shedd

Filed Date: 9/19/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024