Stanley Williams v. Robert Smith ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6333
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT W. SMITH, Supt.; SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, Theodis
Beck,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00757-TDS)
Submitted: July 22, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. 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 Williams’ motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Williams’ motion
for a transcript at Government expense and for a stay pending
appeal, and grant his motion for leave to amend his informal
2
brief. 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
3