Case Name: Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William C. SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-20
Citations: 489 F. App'x 703
Docket Number: No. 12-7061
Parties: Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William C. SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 703–704

Head Matter:
Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William C. SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7061.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2012.
Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2012) petition and denying reconsideration. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.