United States v. Antonio Williams , 707 F. App'x 164 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6936
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO DEMETRIUS WILLIAMS, a/k/a Little Wayne, a/k/a Black, a/k/a
Antonio Williams,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00014-MFU-RSB-3;
5:15-cv-80827-MFU-RSB)
Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Demetrius Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Demetrius Williams 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