Case Name: Anthony Lamont WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-06
Citations: 157 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 05-6818
Parties: Anthony Lamont WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
Anthony Lamont WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6818.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 9, 2005.
Decided Dec. 6, 2005.
Anthony Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Lamont Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 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, 336-38, 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 (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. Further, we deny Williams' request for the appointment of counsel. 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