Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-03
Citations: 381 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 10-6023
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-6023.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 10, 2010.
Decided: June 3, 2010.
Shon Conner Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shon Conner Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (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) (2006). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.