Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Samiri Romaine Williams, a state prisoner, of the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court finds that Williams did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. As such, the court dismisses the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-02-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7127

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Samiri Romaine Williams, a state prisoner, of the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court finds that Williams did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. As such, the court dismisses the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Samiri Romaine Williams, a state prisoner, of the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court finds that Williams did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. As such, the court dismisses the appeal without 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-7127

    SAMIRI ROMAINE WILLIAMS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN, Keen Mountain Correctional Center,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, District
    Judge. (CA-04-67)

    Submitted:

    January 27, 2005

    Decided:

    February 2, 2005

    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Samiri Romaine Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ransom


    Franklin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Samiri Romaine Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
    2254 (2000) petition.

    The order is not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
    368-69, 374 n.7 (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

    constitutional

    the

    claims

    district
    is

    courts

    debatable

    and

    assessment
    that

    any

    of

    his

    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.


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like