William Anderson II v. Commonwealth of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6904

WILLIAM LEE ANDERSON, II,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:25-cv -00433-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 27, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Anderson, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
William Lee Anderson, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. Anderson has
also filed numerous motions on appeal, including a motion for an injunction, two motions
to appoint counsel, two motions to file an amended claim, and a motion to set an evidentiary
hearing and issue a transport order.
The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds,
the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and
that the petition 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 Anderson has not
made the requisite showing. Anderson previously filed a § 2254 petition challenging the
same convictions and sentence and did not receive authorization to file a successive
petition. Accordingly, we deny Anderson’s pending motions, 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