From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Adams

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Oct 2, 2018
No. 18-6453 (4th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-6453

10-02-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM BILL F. ADAMS, JR., a/k/a Bill F. Adams, a/k/a William F. Adams, Defendant - Appellant, and TOMMY SKEENS; JERRY SKEENS; RS MINING, INC.; ROBERT STINSON; TRUONG VAN NGUYEN, Petitioners.

William Bill F. Adams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00044-JPJ-RSB-1; 1:16-cv-81186-JPJ-RSB) Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Bill F. Adams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

William Bill F. Adams, Jr., 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 and conclude that Adams 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


Summaries of

United States v. Adams

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Oct 2, 2018
No. 18-6453 (4th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Adams

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM BILL F. ADAMS…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 2, 2018

Citations

No. 18-6453 (4th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018)