United States v. Douglas Williamson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6722
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DOUGLAS WADE WILLIAMSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
    J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00987-JMC-1; 1:19-cv-01035-JMC)
    Submitted: March 31, 2021                                         Decided: April 15, 2021
    Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellant.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas Wade Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
    on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
    prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists could find the district
    court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.
    Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6722

Filed Date: 4/15/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/15/2021