Rudolph Williams v. Larry Dail

Filing 920090626

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7690

RUDOLPH JEROME WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LARRY DAIL, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-02142-FL)

Submitted:

June 22, 2009

Decided:

June 26, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rudolph Jerome Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Rudolph Jerome Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 a (2006) circuit petition. justice or The order is not a

appealable

unless

judge

issues

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a

A certificate

appealability

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

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. certificate dispense Accordingly, of we deny and Williams' dismiss the the motion for a We legal

appealability oral argument

appeal. and

with

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2