William Butler v. Warden, Lunenburg Correctional

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00446-JRS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998639938]. Mailed to: William Butler. [11-6473]

Appeal: 11-6473

Document: 8

Date Filed: 07/26/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6473

WILLIAM JERMAINE BUTLER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LUNENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00446-JRS)

Submitted:

July 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

July 26, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Jermaine Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa
Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6473

Document: 8

Date Filed: 07/26/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Jermaine Butler seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

petition.

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

§ 2254

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Butler has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny 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

2

Appeal: 11-6473

before

Document: 8

Date Filed: 07/26/2011

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3