Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-15
Citations: 126 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 04-7219
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Glenn Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Glenn Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7219.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 25, 2005.
Decided April 15, 2005.
Glenn Lee Williams, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit, See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Glenn Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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. § 2258(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, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). 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 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