Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06694/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06694-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George T. Hagan
Appellee
Jackie Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6694

JACKIE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jackie L. Williams,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden of Allendale Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:08-cv-03350-GRA)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6694 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackie Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

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) (2006). 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, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

Appeal: 10-6694 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 10-6694 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3