Case Name: Dezai Shontai WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-07
Citations: 305 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 08-6154
Parties: Dezai Shontai WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 968–969

Head Matter:
Dezai Shontai WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 08-6154.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 24, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 7, 2009.
Dezai Shontai Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Gary E.O. Connor, Office of The Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dezai Shontai Williams seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Williams' motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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.