Percy Allen Williams, Jr. v. Robert Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6714
PERCY ALLEN WILLIAMS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT JONES,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00006-GCM)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Percy Allen Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Percy Allen Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), contesting the court’s prior dismissal of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order appealed also
denied Williams’ pending motions for release pending appeal, for
permission to appeal in forma pauperis, and to appoint counsel.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 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

-- 3 of 3 --