US v. Williamson, No. 06-6245 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6245 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-02-324; CA-05-1494-8) Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 20, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s oral order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson has not made the requisite showing. Additionally, we construe Williamson s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court - 2 - to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Williamson s conditions. claims do not satisfy either of these We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
