Court Opinion

ID: 1013216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:57:21.661293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:34.577441
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 03-7904

ZACHARY WILLIAMS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

FRED MENIFEE, Warden,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
03-1656-CCB)

Submitted: April 29, 2004                      Decided:   May 4, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zachary Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Zachary Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on 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 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 -