Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06637/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06637-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Warden Lieber Correctional Institution
Appellee
Jimmy Lee Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6637

JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(5:15-cv-02106-MGL)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6637 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny

relief on Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

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 

Appeal: 16-6637 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6637 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3