Curtis Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for certificate of appealability [1000306381-2]. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00051-CMH-MSN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000335025]. Mailed to: Curtis Maurice Williams. [18-6634]
Appeal: 18-6634
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/24/2018
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6634
CURTIS MAURICE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00051-CMH-MSN)
Submitted: July 19, 2018
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Maurice Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Decided: July 24, 2018
Appeal: 18-6634
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/24/2018
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Maurice Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 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 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 Williams has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion for 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
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?