Williams v. Kelly
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus L. K. KELLY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:06-cv-00357-MHL)
Submitted: June 15, 2007
June 21, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Tewolde, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and motion to reconsider.* unless a circuit justice or The orders are not appealable issues a certificate of
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' motions for a certificate
of appealability, for oral argument, for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 -
decisional process. DISMISSED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?