Williams v. Johnson (4th Cir. 2003)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (June 25, 2003)

Docket number: 03-6507


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/williams-v-johnson-18201947
Id. vLex: VLEX-18201947

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6507 BILLY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-176-2)

Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Billy Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court§ 2254 (2000), in which he challenged his 1998 convictions for first degree murder and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). 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. DISMISSED

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access



Other documents:
President refuses to sign Section 421 for the metalcasting industry | ordre de la consellera d interior de 24 de juny de 2009 de creació i de supressió dels fitxers que contenen dades de caràcter ... | Modificación del anuncio de licitación de la restitución a la exportación de arroz blanqueado de grano largo hacia determinados terceros... | acordão nº ap 01885.1992.006.06.00.7 of tribunal regional do trabalho 6ª região recife of april 19 2004 | State Of Madras VS C J Coelho | Arrêt - Cour de cassation - Première Chambre Civile Nº 77-10891, November ... | decisao monocratica n 2008/0070237-8 of superior tribunal de justica - quinta turma, of april 22, 2008 | Avis de mise en consultation d'une demande d'enregistrement d'indication ... | Arret of Cour de Cassation Extraordinaire of Tribunal Federal N 100 IV 193 of August 26 1974 | ordinanze sospensive nº 930 of t.a.r - campania napoli of april 05 2006 | vernehmlassungsverfahren | arrete royal modifiant l arrete royal du 4 juin 1999 relatif au prelevement sa...