US v. Tyrone Williams, Jr., No. 14-6068 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6068 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYRONE WILLIAMS, JR., a/k/a TJ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00058-RAJ-FBS-9; 2:12-cv-00591-RAJ) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyrone court s order Williams, denying Jr., relief seeks on to his 28 appeal U.S.C. the district § 2255 (2012) motion and a subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter appealable or unless amend a judgment. circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The orders or judge are not issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 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.
