Cazzie Williams v. Eric Wilson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00689-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998844246]. Mailed to: Cazzie Williams. [12-6070]

Appeal: 12-6070

Document: 8

Date Filed: 05/01/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6070
CAZZIE L. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC D. WILSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00689-JAG)
Submitted:

April 26, 2012

Decided:

May 1, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cazzie L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6070

Document: 8

Date Filed: 05/01/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Cazzie

L.

Williams

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition as
a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2006).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

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) (2006).

When the district court denies

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Williams has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-6070

Document: 8

Date Filed: 05/01/2012

Page: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3