Court Opinion

ID: 1015367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:32:00.739129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:12.423794
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7127

SAMIRI ROMAINE WILLIAMS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WARDEN, Keen Mountain Correctional Center,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-04-67)

Submitted:   January 27, 2005             Decided:   February 2, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samiri Romaine Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ransom
Franklin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Samiri Romaine Williams, a state prisoner, 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); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,

368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).              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    the     district      court’s    assessment          of    his

constitutional     claims      is   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 -