Travis Williams v. Gene Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TRAVIS EUGENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:07-cv-01041-GBL-TCB)
June 22, 2009
June 26, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Robert Bryden, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Travis Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order petition. denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C.
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). have independently reviewed the record and conclude We that
Williams has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability, deny Williams' motion for appointment of counsel, 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
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?