United States v. Dequantey Williams

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6065 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6065 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEQUANTEY MAURICE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00393-CCE-2; 1:22-cv- 01124-CCE-LPA) Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dequantey Maurice Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6065 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Dequantey Maurice Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. In this court, Williams has filed a motion to amend his application for a certificate of appealability; we grant this motion. The district court’s orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 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 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2