Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwan Marquis WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-22
Citations: 655 F. App'x 168
Docket Number: No. 16-6458
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwan Marquis WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 655
Pages: 168–169

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwan Marquis WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6458
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2016
Decided: July 22, 2016
Dwan Marquis Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwan Marquis Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 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 the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED