Court Opinion

ID: 9382155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:28.502296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.717749
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6932      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6932

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TERRY GLENN WILLIAMS, JR., Plug, a/k/a Sugar,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:17-cr-00016-AWA-DEM-1;
        4:19-cv-00118-AWA)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terry Glenn Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6932       Doc: 11         Filed: 03/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Terry Glenn Williams, Jr., 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 demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Williams has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

        dismiss the appeal. We deny Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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