Gary Williams v. William Smith, No. 13-6128 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6128 GARY B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner Appellant, v. WILLIAM C. SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00578-HEH) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Buterra Williams seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying appealable unless certificate of (2006). a reconsideration. The circuit or justice appealability. See 28 orders judge U.S.C. are not issues a § 2253(c)(1)(A) 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) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims 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 484-85. 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. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3