Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07882/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07882-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7882

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM DANIELS, a/k/a Lord,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:93-cr-00130-BO-7; 5:14-cv-00357-BO)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7882 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. 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 

Daniels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Daniels’ motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 14-7882 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7882 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3