Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07063/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07063-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 07-7063

GENERAL LEE WILLIAMS, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE KENWORTHY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00631-WLO)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 26, 2007 

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

General Lee Williams, III, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7063 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/26/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
*

To the extent that Williams seeks to raise new claims in his

informal brief, these claims are not properly before this court.

See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

General Lee Williams, III, seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and 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. 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. 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 Williams has

not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny Williams’

motion for appointment of counsel, 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: 07-7063 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/26/2007 Pg: 2 of 2