US v. Shannon Williams, No. 14-7381 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, v. SHANNON DERRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doe, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00085-JRS-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shannon Derrell Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his petition for a writ of audita querela as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 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