William Anderson, II v. Director of the Dept. of Corr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999021439-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998994652-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998985535-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998994615-2] Originating case number: 7:12-cv-00323-SGW-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999029872]. Mailed to: W. Anderson, II. [12-7872]
Appeal: 12-7872
Doc: 16
Filed: 01/25/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7872
WILLIAM LEE ANDERSON, II,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:12-cv-00323-SGW-RSB)
Submitted:
January 22, 2013
Decided: January 25, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Anderson, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7872
Doc: 16
Filed: 01/25/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Anderson, II, 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.
appealable
§ 2254
unless
petition.
circuit
a
(2006)
justice
certificate of appealability.
Reid
v.
Angelone,
A certificate
of
369
The
or
order
judge
is
not
issues
a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006);
F.3d
363,
appealability
369
will
(4th
not
Cir.
issue
2004).
absent
“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
that
U.S.
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
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.
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Anderson has not made the requisite showing.
we
deny
Anderson’s
motions
to
2
appoint
counsel,
Accordingly,
and
for
a
Appeal: 12-7872
Doc: 16
Filed: 01/25/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
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 this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?