Court Opinion

ID: 1012401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:44:38.224184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:06.711888
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 03-7220

KERMITT ALPHONSO WILLIAMS,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director      of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-02-898-2)

Submitted: December 17, 2003                 Decided:   February 4, 2004

Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kermitt Alphonso Williams, Appellant Pro Se.        Stephen R.
McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kermitt Alphonso Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).    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

his constitutional claims are 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 Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel,

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 -