Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, a/k/a Baby Boy, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-31
Citations: 164 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 05-7380
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, a/k/a Baby Boy, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, a/k/a Baby Boy, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7380.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 31, 2006.
Shon Conner Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shon Conner Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis as an unauthorized successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (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 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, 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 (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