Milton Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00690-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000106016]. Mailed to: Milton Williams. [17-6532]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6532 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6532 MILTON N. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00690-RCY) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 23, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton N. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6532 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Milton N. Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. ∗ The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see MillerEl 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 Williams 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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED ∗ The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 2

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?