UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6206
DARRELL J. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of SCDC; CHARLES M.
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 03-7621
DARRELL J. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of SCDC; CHARLES M.
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-265-4-12)
Submitted: February 9, 2004 Decided: March 8, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Darrell J. Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and on postjudgment motions. A
final order in a habeas proceeding is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 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, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). 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 appeals. 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 -