Darrell Williams v. Anthony Padula, (4th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6092

DARRELL WILLIAMS, f/k/a Alvin Glenn,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden, Lee Correction Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (8:10-cv-02688-CMC)

Submitted: June 28, 2011 Decided: July 19, 2011

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Darrell J. Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 28U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 (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 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.