US v. Kieron Matthew Williams, No. 17-7196 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7196 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIERON MATTHEW WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00596-GLR-1) Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: February 12, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kieron Matthew Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Corey Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kieron Matthew Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed pro se in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Although such an order is not final, for the reasons stated by the majority of our sister courts that have addressed the issue, we proceed under the assumption that an order denying a civil litigant’s right to self-representation is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See, e.g., Devine v. Indian River Cty. Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 579 (11th Cir. 1997) (collecting cases), abrogated in part on other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007). The district court offered no explanation for denying Williams’ motion to proceed pro se. Because, on the current record, we are unable to discern any independent rationale supporting the district court’s order, we cannot assess the propriety of the court’s ruling. Consequently, we vacate the district court’s order and remand to allow the district court to explain or reassess its ruling. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 2

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.