UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7162
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIE BRIAN WILLIAMS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00112-TSE-1; 1:11-cv-00220-TSE)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Brian Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Jackson Allen,
Marc Harry Pachon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jack
Hanly, Assistant United States Attorney, Jeffrey L. Shih,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Brian Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2006). 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) (2006). 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.
Additionally, we construe Williams’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
2
successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no
reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the
offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h)(1)-(2). Williams’s
claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we
deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
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
3