From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Virginia

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 23, 2017
No. 17-6532 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)

Opinion

No. 17-6532

06-23-2017

MILTON N. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.

Milton N. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00690-RCY) Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton N. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Milton N. Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on Williams' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). --------

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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

Williams v. Virginia

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 23, 2017
No. 17-6532 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)
Case details for

Williams v. Virginia

Case Details

Full title:MILTON N. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 23, 2017

Citations

No. 17-6532 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)