Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06023/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06023-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Shon Conner Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SHON CONNER WILLIAMS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (0:99-cr-00659-CMC-7; 0:02-cv-04012-CMC)

Submitted: May 10, 2010 Decided: June 3, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shon Conner Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6023 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shon Conner Williams seeks to appeal the district 

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

relief from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) 

(2006). 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: 10-6023 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6023 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 3 of 3