Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07505/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Turner Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7505

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM TURNER SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:07-cr-00011-D-1; 5:14-cv-00373-D)

Submitted: March 24, 2015 Decided: April 15, 2015

Before KING, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Turner Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7505 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William Turner Smith seeks to appeal 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 

Smith 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: 14-7505 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/15/2015 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: 14-7505 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/15/2015 Pg: 3 of 3