Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06738/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06738-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Fremandeus C. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6738

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FREMANDEUS C. WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (4:06-cr-00033-BO-1; 4:13-cv-00188-BO)

Submitted: December 30, 2014 Decided: January 6, 2015

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fremandeus C. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North 

Carolina; Michael Gordon James, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6738 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Fremandeus C. Williams seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 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: 14-6738 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/06/2015 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: 14-6738 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/06/2015 Pg: 3 of 3