Charles Williamson v. Harold Clarke, No. 11-7117 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7117 CHARLES VEST WILLIAMSON, Petitioner Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00522-RBS-DEM) Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Vest Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Vest Williamson seeks to appeal the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice These orders are or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. We have independently reviewed record and conclude that Williamson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williamson s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.
