Williams v. Washington , 144 F. App'x 335 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6685
    VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    G. WASHINGTON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-04-624-3-RLW)
    Submitted:   September 19, 2005       Decided:   September 30, 2005
    Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district
    court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) and his motion to reconsider.                An appeal may not be
    taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 
    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    the     district      court’s     assessment         of     his
    constitutional      claims      is   debatable    and     that    any    dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude that Williams 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: 05-6685

Citation Numbers: 144 F. App'x 335

Judges: Duncan, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 9/30/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023