-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6852 MILTON N. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent -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. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00645-JAG-RCY) Submitted: November 20, 2017 Decided: November 27, 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Milton N. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his second
28 U.S.C. § 2254(2012) petition as a motion to amend his first § 2254 petition and denying the motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
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 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 17-6852
Citation Numbers: 702 F. App'x 185
Judges: Gregory, Traxler, Keenan
Filed Date: 11/20/2017
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024