Opinion
No. 19-7837
03-17-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHEMIKA ALFRIDA PARSON WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.
Shemika Alfrida Parson Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:17-cr-00211-TMC-1, 8:19-cv-00777-TMC) Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shemika Alfrida Parson Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Shemika Alfrida Parson Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED