Stanley Williams v. Sidney Harkleroad , 460 F. App'x 224 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7061
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK, Secretary
of Corrections,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:03-cv-00299-TDS-WWD)
Submitted: December 21, 2011 Decided: December 30, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-
Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order affirming and adopting the order of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on Williams’ post-judgment motion in
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) action. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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)
(2006). 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 and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3