Case Name: Rudolph Jerome WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry DAIL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-26
Citations: 334 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 08-7690
Parties: Rudolph Jerome WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Larry DAIL, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
Rudolph Jerome WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Larry DAIL, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-7690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2009.
Decided: June 26, 2009.
Rudolph Jerome Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rudolph Jerome Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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. 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 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.