US v. William Almond, No. 13-6951 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6951 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM JEFF ALMOND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00184-D-1) Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Jeff Almond, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William court s order Jeff denying Almond seeks relief on to 28 his appeal U.S.C. motion and petition for a writ of coram nobis. * appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice the district § 2255 (2006) The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Id. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). on the merits, demonstrating district that court s debatable or a When the district court denies relief prisoner satisfies reasonable assessment wrong. Slack jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Almond has not made the requisite showing. * Almond raises The district court properly concluded that the limited remedy of coram nobis was not available to Almond. See United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012). 2 an unresolved question in this circuit whether § 2255 bars a prisoner from filing a second habeas petition when intervening precedent has vindicated the argument rejected in the prisoner s first habeas petition. See Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011). In light of the posture of this case, however, we need not and do not reach that question. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 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.
