Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06947/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06947-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6947

WILLIAM POTTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VANESSA ADAMS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-01357)

Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Potts, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Jason Mikolashek, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6947 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/04/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Potts, a federal prisoner and District of

Columbia Code offender, appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 Potts

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

Appeal: 07-6947 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/04/2007 Pg: 2 of 2