Williams v. Harkleroad, No. 05-7263 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7263 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; BECK, Secretary of Corrections, THEODIS Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-299-1) Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: January 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion seeking reconsideration of the district court s order adopting and affirming the magistrate judge s denial of several post-judgment motions in Williams 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) action. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. justice or The order is judge issues a 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. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 28 U.S.C. 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 (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 Williams motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and - 2 - 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 - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.