United States v. Williams

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY GLENN WILLIAMS…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Mar 23, 2023

No. 22-6932 (4th Cir. Mar. 23, 2023)

Opinion

22-6932

03-23-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY GLENN WILLIAMS, JR., Plug, a/k/a Sugar, Defendant-Appellant.

Terry Glenn Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: March 21, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:17-cr-00016-AWA-DEM-1; 4:19-cv-00118-AWA)

Terry Glenn Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry Glenn Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 deny Williams' motion for appointment of counsel. 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