Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Anthonie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-30
Citations: 520 F. App'x 174
Docket Number: No. 13-6180
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Anthonie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 520
Pages: 174–175

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Anthonie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6180.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2013.
Decided: April 30, 2013.
Lloyd Anthonie Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Corey F. Ellis, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appehee.
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd Anthonie Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying, as successive, his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012). The order, which also denied Williams a writ of error coram nobis as an alternative basis for relief, is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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.