Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07372/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07372-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Marcus Robert Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCUS ROBERT WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00259-FL-2; 5:15-cv-00408-FL)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Michael Gordon James, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7372 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Robert Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive 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 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: 15-7372 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/18/2015 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: 15-7372 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3