UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6793
GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DAVID L. SIMONS, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00599-HEH)
Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams, a state pre-trial detainee,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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). 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, 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We also deny Williams’ motions to stay the state
criminal proceedings pending appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3