Court Opinion

ID: 2744664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-22 19:03:15.242277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:16.708012
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7222

GARY B.   WILLIAMS,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

           v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Dept. of Corrections,

                       Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00276-HEH)

Submitted:   October 16, 2014             Decided:   October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Gary   Buterra    Williams         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.                              See 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,

we deny Williams’ motion for a certificate of appealability 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