Issac Williams v. US, No. 17-7471 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7471 ISSAC LAMONT WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00607-TDS-LPA) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Issac Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Issac Lamont Williams appeals the district court’s order and judgment, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition challenging his sentence as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive and without authorization from this court. Williams contends on appeal that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, arguing that his challenge to his sentence under Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), should be considered under § 2241. Williams has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Williams’ petition, we affirm the court’s dismissal. 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. AFFIRMED 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.
