Williamson v. Jackson , 266 F. App'x 304 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7486
    CLYDE E. WILLIAMSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    RICK JACKSON, Superintendent of LCI,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (2:07-cv-00009)
    Submitted:     February 21, 2008           Decided:   February 26, 2008
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clyde E. Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,    Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Clyde E. Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.                 The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.           See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).
    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)   (2000).        A   prisoner   satisfies    this   standard    by
    demonstrating    that    reasonable       jurists   would     find   that     any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the   district   court     is       likewise   debatable.      See   Miller-El
    v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir.
    2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
    Williamson 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 the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7486

Citation Numbers: 266 F. App'x 304

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Wilkins

Filed Date: 2/26/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023