Case ID: f-appx_60/html/0939-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dennis M. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LUNENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-6120.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 26, 2003.
    Decided April 18, 2003.
    Dennis M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Dennis M. Williams, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 59(e) motion. 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S. Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Williams has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Moreover, we conclude the district court properly denied Williams’ Rule 59(e) motion. 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.