Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Williams v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Larry Williams' appeal of the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The district court denied Williams' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice, finding it was successive. The appeals court will not consider the appeal further unless it grants a certificate of appealability, but finds that Williams has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court dismisses the appeal, denies Williams' motion for appointment of counsel, and will dispense with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-03-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-8016

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Larry Williams' appeal of the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The district court denied Williams' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice, finding it was successive. The appeals court will not consider the appeal further unless it grants a certificate of appealability, but finds that Williams has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court dismisses the appeal, denies Williams' motion for appointment of counsel, and will dispense with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Williams v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Larry Williams' appeal of the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The district court denied Williams' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice, finding it was successive. The appeals court will not consider the appeal further unless it grants a certificate of appealability, but finds that Williams has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court dismisses the appeal, denies Williams' motion for appointment of counsel, and will dispense with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-8016

    LARRY WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    CAROFLINA F. WILLIAMS; THOMAS COOPER, Jr.,
    Judge; WILLIAM H. CHANDLER; HARRY L. DEVOE,
    JR.; NFN SHULER; GORDON B. JENKINSON; DAVID
    SPENCER; HENRY D. MCMASTER,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
    (CA-04-22296-3-24)

    Submitted:

    March 10, 2005

    Decided:

    March 15, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Williams seeks to appeal the district courts order
    accepting

    the

    magistrate

    judges

    recommendation

    and

    denying,

    without prejudice, his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)


    as successive.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 courts 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

    Williams has not made the requisite showing.

    and

    conclude

    that

    Accordingly, we deny

    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    We deny

    Williams motion for appointment of counsel and 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 -

    You might also like