Court Opinion

ID: 9961121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 21:01:11.879152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:16.674955
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6077      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/16/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-6077

        RICHARD LEO WILLIAMS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01670-CMH-JFA)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 16, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard Leo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6077         Doc: 11      Filed: 04/16/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Leo Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his

        motion to vacate his state criminal judgment as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing

        it as successive and unauthorized. 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). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529

        U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               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 this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                     2