US v. Charles Williams, No. 08-8135 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8135 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES ODELL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00239-BO; 5:07-cv-3-BO) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Odell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Steve R. Matheny, States Attorneys, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Odell Williams seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 U.S.C. this would claims by § 2253(c)(2) standard find the that district by (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. motion for appeal. legal before a certificate Accordingly, we deny Williams of appealability and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.