UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6374
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM ANTHONY YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00216-CMC-1; 3:15-cv-00368-CMC)
Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 6, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Anthony Young, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth
Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Anthony Young seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
unauthorized and successive, and denying Young’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. The orders are
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
Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny Young’s motions for the
appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
2
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
3