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)

U.S. Supreme Court - Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant., 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITNo. 03-6507 BILLY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versusGENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the VirginiaDepartment 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June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Billy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAMBilly Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court§ 2254 (2000), in which he challenged his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 ,Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access