Court Opinion

ID: 1022567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:24:26.111105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:13.891839
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7744

DONALD LEE WILLIAMS, JR.,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

R. H. POWELL, Warden Brunswick Correctional
Center,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00723-JCC)

Submitted:   May 11, 2007                   Decided:    May 18, 2007

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.   Thomas Drummond
Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Donald Lee Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.    The order is not appealable 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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.            Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has

not made the requisite showing.             Accordingly, we deny Williams’

Motion to Compel the District Court to Comply with Rule 22(b), 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 -