UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7063
GENERAL LEE WILLIAMS, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE KENWORTHY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00631-WLO)
Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 26, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
General Lee Williams, III, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
General Lee Williams, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The
order 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 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. 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 appointment of counsel, 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 the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
To the extent that Williams seeks to raise new claims in his
informal brief, these claims are not properly before this court.
See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
- 2 -