Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06374/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06374-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6374

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM ANTHONY YOUNG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior 

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00216-CMC-1; 3:15-cv-00368-CMC)

Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 6, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Anthony Young, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth 

Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6374 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William Anthony Young seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as 

unauthorized and successive, and denying Young’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. 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 

Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Young’s motions for the 

appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

Appeal: 15-6374 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/06/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-6374 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/06/2015 Pg: 3 of 3