Stanley Williams v. Robert Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998846889-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:07-cv-00757-TDS-WWD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998926056]. Mailed to: Stanley Williams. [12-6710]

Appeal: 12-6710

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/28/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6710

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT
BECK,

W.

SMITH,

Supt.;

SECRETARY

OF

CORRECTIONS

THEODIS

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00757-TDS-WWD)

Submitted:

August 10, 2012

Decided:

August 28, 2012

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6710

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/28/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lorenzo 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 (2006) petition and his “Motion for an
Order to Enlarge the Time to File Amendments/And Request for an
Expedited Ruling on the Matter Given the Clear and Undisputed
Constitutional Violation.”
appealable

unless

a

The district court’s order is not

circuit

justice

or

judge

issues

a

certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006);

Reid

363,

v.

Angelone,

certificate

of

369

F.3d

appealability

369

will

(4th
not

Cir.

2004).
absent

issue

A
“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

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 petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
at 484-85.
2

Slack, 529 U.S.

Appeal: 12-6710

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/28/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, 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

3