Williams v. Hooks

Full title: TEON JAMELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 28, 2020

No. 20-6709 (4th Cir. Jul. 28, 2020)

Opinion

No. 20-6709

07-28-2020

TEON JAMELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary, N.C. Dept. of Public Safety; KENNETH LASSITER, Director of Prisons, Respondents - Appellees.

Teon Jamell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00026-FDW) Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teon Jamell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Teon Jamell Williams seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motions to amend and compel and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

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