Filed: Dec. 16, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-60743 USDC Nos. 3:97-CV-60 & 4:93-CR-021-D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PERRY WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi - December 13, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Perry Williams, federal prisoner # 09800-042, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the dist
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-60743 USDC Nos. 3:97-CV-60 & 4:93-CR-021-D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PERRY WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi - December 13, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Perry Williams, federal prisoner # 09800-042, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the distr..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60743
USDC Nos. 3:97-CV-60 &
4:93-CR-021-D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PERRY WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
----------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
----------
December 13, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Perry Williams, federal prisoner # 09800-042, moves this court for a certificate of
appealability (COA) following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to set aside
his sentence. This court issues a COA only if the prisoner makes a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Williams fails to make this necessary showing with
his claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the district court
misapplied the sentencing guidelines by imposing a three-level increase in his offense level based upon
his managerial role in the offense. Accordingly, Williams’ request for a COA is DENIED.
Williams’ contention that he is entitled to relief on authority of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has
no merit. Therefore, the district court’s denial of relief on this claim is AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
COA DENIED; DENIAL OF § 3582 RELIEF AFFIRMED.