Dezai Shontai Williams v. JAMES SMITH, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6154
DEZAI SHONTAI WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES SMITH, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:06-cv-01054-JFM)
Submitted: November 24, 2008 Decided: January 7, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dezai Shontai Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Gary E. O. Connor,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dezai Shontai Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Williams’ motion for 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

-- 2 of 2 --