Case Name: Percy Allen WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert JONES, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-27
Citations: 348 F. App'x 895
Docket Number: No. 09-7130
Parties: Percy Allen WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert JONES, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 895–896

Head Matter:
Percy Allen WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert JONES, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-7130.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 27, 2009.
Percy Allen Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Percy Allen Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Williams' motion for appointment of counsel and deny, as moot, his motions for bail or release pending appeal and for injunc-tive relief pending 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.