Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley Bernard WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-19
Citations: 177 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 05-7858
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wesley Bernard WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wesley Bernard WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7858.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 7, 2006.
Decided: April 19, 2006.
Wesley Bernard Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Bernard Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 the district court's assess ment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise 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