Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Issac Lamont WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-31
Citations: 651 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 16-6058
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Issac Lamont WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 158–158

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Issac Lamont WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6058
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2016
Decided: May 31, 2016
Issac Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Issac Lamont Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 motion 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED