Calvin Williams v. Warden of Perry Correctional Institution

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6317 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6317

CALVIN TERRELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:24-cv-00457-JFA)

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Terrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6317 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Calvin Terrell Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Williams’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Williams’s motion to appoint 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED