Court Opinion

ID: 1014408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:16:10.483772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:31.108284
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6695

KEVIN LEE WILLIAMS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WARDEN, G.R.C.C.,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-03-731-3)

Submitted:   September 16, 2004        Decided:   September 21, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Kevin Lee Williams seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order finding that Williams had not exhausted his state

remedies and dismissing without prejudice 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-

38 (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     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 -