United States v. Lloyd Williams

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LLOYD ANTHONIE WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (4:98-cr-00144-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00254-MR)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Anthonie Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise
Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Anthonie Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying, as successive, his motion filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012). The order, which also denied

Williams a writ of error coram nobis as an alternative basis for

relief, 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.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3