Williams v. United States
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:20-cv-01554
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. United States, Judge Sullivan declined to grant a certificate of appealability, finding appellate review unwarranted after an earlier order denied Williams’s motions.
John Todd Williams, the self-represented petitioner seeking appellate review; the United States of America is the respondent.
What happened
In Williams v. United States, the court addressed petitioner John Todd Williams’s attempt to appeal an earlier order that denied his motions. The opinion does not describe those motions’ contents.
The court had previously certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because it would lack a legally or factually supportable basis. This order clarified that no certificate of appealability was granted because Williams had not made the required substantial showing that a federal right was denied.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan, a circuit judge sitting by designation, stated that appellate review was not warranted. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Williams, whom the opinion identifies as representing himself, at the address listed on his notice of appeal.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-01554
- Richard Sullivan
- May 27, 2025
Background
On April 21, 2025, the court issued an order denying petitioner John Todd Williams’s motions. The present order does not explain what those motions sought or the reasons for their denial.
Appealability
The earlier order stated that any appeal would lack an arguable basis in law or fact. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from that order would not be taken in good faith. This certification concerns whether a person may pursue an appeal without paying court fees.
This order clarified that the court did not grant a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required for appellate review of certain federal post-conviction matters. The court stated that Williams had not made a substantial showing that a federal right had been denied, and that appellate review was therefore not warranted.
Disposition
The court did not grant a certificate of appealability. The clerk was respectfully requested to mail a copy of the order to Williams, whom the opinion identifies as a pro se petitioner, at the address listed on his May 16, 2025 notice of appeal. The opinion does not otherwise describe the status of the appeal or the underlying motions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.