Milton Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia , 702 F. App'x 185 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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