Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Lee WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jermaine Thomas Williamson, a/k/a James Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jerry Williamson, a/k/a Jerminie Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy Jermaine Williamson, a/k/a Kenneth Goss, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-05
Citations: 156 F. App'x 605
Docket Number: No. 05-6905
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jimmy Lee WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jermaine Thomas Williamson, a/k/a James Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jerry Williamson, a/k/a Jerminie Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy Jermaine Williamson, a/k/a Kenneth Goss, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 605–606

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jimmy Lee WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jermaine Thomas Williamson, a/k/a James Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jerry Williamson, a/k/a Jerminie Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy Jermaine Williamson, a/k/a Kenneth Goss, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6905.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided Dec. 5, 2005.
Jimmy Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jimmy Lee Williams seeks to appeal from the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motions for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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