Case ID: f-appx_564/html/0010-01.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. Roderick Lamar WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-7634.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 27, 2014.
    Decided: March 31, 2014.
    Roderick Lamar Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roderick Lamar Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b) motion to amend or make additional findings. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion requesting permission to file and to take judicial notice, 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.