US v. Lloyd Williams, No. 08-6740 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6740 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LLOYD ANTHONIE WILLIAMS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (4:98-cr-00144-LHT-1; 1:06-cv-00193-LHT) Submitted: October 30, 2008 Decided: January 12, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Anthonie Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lloyd Anthonie Williams seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 & West Supp. 2008) motion and his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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). conclude We that Accordingly, we have independently Williams deny has not Williams reviewed made motions appealability and dismiss the appeal. the for the record requisite a and showing. certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.