Vincent Williams v. Harold Clarke, No. 13-7245 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7245 VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. No. 13-7246 VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00417-REP; 3:12-cv-00305-REP) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: November 22, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Lara Kate Jacobs Todd, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. Regarding the order denying Williams initial § 2254 petition, 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. 3 Williams also seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. basis. § 2254 This (2006) order judge petition, is also justice or issues U.S.C. a § 2253(c)(1)(A); not and appealable certificate Reid, dismissing 369 of F.3d it unless a on that circuit appealability. at 369. 28 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the certificate requisite of Additionally, showing. appealability we construe Accordingly, and Williams dismiss notice we the of deny a appeal. appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or previously discoverable (2) newly by due discovered diligence, evidence, that not would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). these criteria. would 28 U.S.C. Williams claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, we successive § 2254 petition. 4 deny authorization to file a We dispense with oral argument and deny Williams motion to sanction state attorney general s office because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 5

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.