Court Opinion

ID: 4517078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-03-17 19:00:15.519843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:11.612667
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7837

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

SHEMIKA ALFRIDA PARSON WILLIAMS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:17-cr-00211-TMC-1, 8:19-cv-00777-
TMC)

Submitted: March 12, 2020                                         Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shemika Alfrida Parson Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Shemika Alfrida Parson Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018).

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) (2018). When the district court denies relief

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would 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 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 contentions

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

decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                              2