Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06692/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06692-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6692

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR., a/k/a Fast Eddie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:02-cr-00324-HMH-1; 8:15-cv-01094-HMH)

Submitted: October 28, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance 

Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6692 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion and denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are 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 

Williamson 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 

Appeal: 15-6692 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6692 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 3