Rudolph Williams v. Larry Dail
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
June 22, 2009
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
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
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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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?