Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07789/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07789-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

IVORY RONZELL WILLIAMS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00209-REP-1; 3:12-cv-00051-REP)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivory Ronzell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, 

Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Michael C. Wallace, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7789 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ivory Ronzell Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely 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 the informal 

appellate brief 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 

Appeal: 14-7789 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7789 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3