Williams v. Attorney General of Maryland , 158 F. App'x 482 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7272
ZACHARY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND;
FRED MENIFEE,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
00-3504-CCB)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zachary Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Zachary Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which he raised a defect in the
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), specifically that the
district court erred in dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely
filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
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 the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -