Case ID: f-appx_141/html/0210-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roland A. WILLIAMS, Sr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-6500.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.
    Decided Aug. 24, 2005.
    Roland A. Williams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Gina Laurie Simms, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Roland A. Williams, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration and for a certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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.

Williams also asserts for the first time on appeal that the trial judge was biased. Because this claim was not raised below, Williams may not raise it now on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we 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