US v. William Smalls, No. 14-7212 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 30, 2014.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7212 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM ISAAC SMALLS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00008-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00286-MR) Submitted: April 10, 2015 Decided: July 1, 2015 Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Isaac Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Isaac Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 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). 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 Smalls has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny This case has recently been returned to this court, after a limited remand to the district court to determine the timeliness of Smalls’ notice of appeal. The district court determined that Smalls’ notice of appeal was timely filed. 2 a certificate dispense of with contentions are appealability oral argument adequately and dismiss because presented in the the the appeal. facts We and legal 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.
