Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07468/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07468-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7468

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LIONEL ELIZAH WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior 

District Judge. (2:90-cr-00149-RGD-2; 2:13-cv-00005-RGD)

Submitted: September 14, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lionel Elizah Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7468 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Lionel Elizah Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing 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 

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 

Appeal: 14-7468 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/19/2015 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: 14-7468 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3