US v. William Handy, Jr., No. 10-7553 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM L. HANDY, JR., a/k/a B, Defendant - Appellant. No. 10-7554 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM L. HANDY, JR., a/k/a B, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:04-cr-00559-AW-7; 8:09-cv-02011-AW) Submitted: March 14, 2011 Decided: March 24, 2011 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William L. Handy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William Handy, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ( Rule 59(e) ) motion for returning reconsideration, Handy s motion as to well recuse as the its correspondence district court judge because the motion was received after his case was closed. An appealable order dismissing unless a a circuit motion under justice certificate of appealability. or § 2255 judge is not issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). The same is true as to an attempt to appeal an order denying reconsideration of an order denying § 2255 relief. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). See Reid v. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive 3 the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Handy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss appeal number 10-7554. We also dismiss Handy s appeal in number 10-7553 from the district court s correspondence returning his late motion to recuse. A letter is not an appealable judgment or order, see Fed. R. App. P. 3(a), 4(a), and in any event, Handy has not made a showing of extra judicial bias in this case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
