UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6710
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT W. SMITH, Supt.; SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS THEODIS
BECK,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00757-TDS-WWD)
Submitted: August 10, 2012 Decided: August 28, 2012
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his “Motion for an
Order to Enlarge the Time to File Amendments/And Request for an
Expedited Ruling on the Matter Given the Clear and Undisputed
Constitutional Violation.” The district court’s order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, 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