Court Opinion

ID: 4677691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-04-15 19:00:19.87891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:03.485685
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DOUGLAS WADE WILLIAMSON,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00987-JMC-1; 1:19-cv-01035-JMC)

Submitted: March 31, 2021                                         Decided: April 15, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Douglas Wade Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists could find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137

S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson 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 contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2