Court Opinion

ID: 1017177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:01:07.895235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:59.983426
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6685

VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

G. WASHINGTON, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-624-3-RLW)

Submitted:   September 19, 2005       Decided:   September 30, 2005

Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

               Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) and his motion to reconsider.                An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).             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) (2000).            A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would    find     that    the     district      court’s     assessment         of     his

constitutional      claims      is   debatable    and     that    any    dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (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 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

                                        - 2 -