Court Opinion

ID: 9962851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:00:56.091625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:28.346930
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7277      Doc: 5        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7277

        TONY HOWARD WILLIAMS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00748-PJM)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tony Howard Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7277         Doc: 5      Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Tony Howard Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. 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