Case Name: Zachary WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Attorney General for the State of Maryland; Fred MENIFEE, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-21
Citations: 158 F. App'x 482
Docket Number: No. 05-7272
Parties: Zachary WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Attorney General for the State of Maryland; Fred MENIFEE, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 482–483

Head Matter:
Zachary WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Attorney General for the State of Maryland; Fred MENIFEE, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7272.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2005.
Decided Dec. 21, 2005.
Zachary Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Zachary Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), in which he raised a defect in the proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), specifically that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir.2004). 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 assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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