Case Name: Roy Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Kenneth Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-28
Citations: 467 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 11-7378
Parties: Roy Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Kenneth Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 244–244

Head Matter:
Roy Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Kenneth Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 11-7378.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2012.
Roy Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roy Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his Fed. R. civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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 petition 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.