Percy Williams, Jr. v. Robert Jone, No. 10-6714 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6714 PERCY ALLEN WILLIAMS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT JONES, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00006-GCM) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Percy Allen Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Percy Allen Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), contesting the court s prior dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order appealed also denied Williams pending motions for release pending appeal, for permission to appeal in forma pauperis, and to appoint counsel. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a constitutional of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 See 28 showing U.S.C. of the § 2253(c)(2) denial (2006). of a The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 2 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal. for a certificate of 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
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.
