US v. William O'Neil, Jr., No. 11-6952 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6952 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM HOWARD ONEIL, JR., a/k/a William Howard O Neil, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00088-MR-1; 1:11-cv-00053-MR) Submitted: December 1, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Howard O Neil, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, Carolina, for Appellee. David North Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Howard O Neil, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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 on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record O Neil has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and conclude that Accordingly, we deny dismiss because 2 and the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.
