US v. Fremandeus Williams, No. 14-6738 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6738 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREMANDEUS C. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00033-BO-1; 4:13-cv-00188-BO) Submitted: December 30, 2014 Decided: January 6, 2015 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fremandeus C. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; Michael Gordon James, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fremandeus C. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his (2012) motion and denying reconsideration. appealable unless certificate of (2012). a circuit justice appealability. See 28 § 2255 The orders are not or 28 U.S.C. judge U.S.C. issues a § 2253(c)(1)(B) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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. 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.
