Court Opinion

ID: 3196679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-21 19:01:50.711584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:14.630348
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-7837

LACY LEE WILLIAMS, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02082-FL)

Submitted:   April 19, 2016                 Decided:   April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lacy Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

     Lacy Lee Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.            The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.      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, based

on the sound reasoning of the district court, we deny a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and

dismiss the appeal.      We dispense with oral argument because the

facts   and   legal   contentions   are   adequately   presented    in   the

                                     2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3