Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamondes WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-27
Citations: 687 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 16-7289
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamondes WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamondes WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7289
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2017
Decided: April 27, 2017
Lamondes Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamondes Williams seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The court's denial of relief is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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