Lacy Williams, Jr. v. State of North Carolina , 641 F. App'x 284 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7837
LACY LEE WILLIAMS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02082-FL)
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lacy Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lacy Lee Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When 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.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, based
on the sound reasoning of the district court, we deny a certificate
of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3