Case ID: f-appx_100/html/0211-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Glenn Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7504.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2004.
    Decided June 16, 2004.
    Glenn Lee Williams, Appellant pro se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    
      Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Glenn Williams appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Williams also asserts that in the order denying his motion to amend the district court improperly permitted the Government to file a motion for summary judgment in his habeas litigation. The district court has since granted summary judgment in favor of the Government and dismissed his motion.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).

We therefore 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED