Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Sinclair WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-09
Citations: 179 F. App'x 880
Docket Number: No. 05-6846
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Sinclair WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 880–881

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Sinclair WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6846.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2006.
Decided May 9, 2006.
Larry Sinclair Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael James Elston, Assistant United States Attorney, Owen Matthew Kendler, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Sinclair Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. Williams' motion sought relief from the district court's 1993 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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 (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.