Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06060/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Johnny Junior Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6060

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY JUNIOR WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00295-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00805-BO)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Junior Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Jane 

J. Jackson, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Shailika S. Kotiya, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6060 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Junior Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order construing his motion to reverse the judgment as a 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on 

that basis. 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: 16-6060 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/22/2016 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: 16-6060 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3