US v. Roderick Williams, No. 12-7953 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7953 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODERICK LAMAR WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00004-RLV-DSC-8; 5:08-cv00041-RLV) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: June 10, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick Lamar Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roderick Lamar Williams seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and denying his motion to alter or amend that judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). These orders are not appealable unless or a circuit justice judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006); Reid 363, v. Angelone, certificate of 369 F.3d appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. 2004). absent issue A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, demonstrating district debatable that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams motion to place this appeal in abeyance, deny his motion to supplement his request for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for leave to file his motion to supplement, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this 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.
