UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6641
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAVIN DATRON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-D-1; 4:12-cv-00201-D)
Submitted: October 10, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kavin Datron Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North
Carolina; Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kavin D. 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, including
the transcript of the evidentiary hearing conducted in the
district court, and conclude that Williams has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams’s motions for
a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel
and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because
2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3