Stanley Williams v. Sidney Harkleroad, No. 13-6397 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6397 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:03-cv-00299-TDS-PTS) Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: August 7, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra WallaceSmith, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for leave to file a Motion for Leave to File a Rule (6) FRCP Motion to Enlarge Time to File Amendments/An Additional Constitutional Claim Pursuant to Graham v. Florida 130 S.C. 2011 176 LEd 2d 825 (2010). not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or The order is 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 merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies 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, deny leave to proceed in 2 forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 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

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.