Williams v. Kupec , 157 F. App'x 600 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6818
    ANTHONY LAMONT WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT J. KUPEC, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
    04-1708-JFM)
    Submitted:   November 9, 2005             Decided:   December 6, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anthony Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
    Jr., Attorney General, Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Lamont Williams seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge   issues    a   certificate    of     appealability.         
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1). 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 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 (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. Further, we
    deny Williams’ request for the appointment of counsel. 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6818

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 600

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/6/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024