Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tariq WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-04
Citations: 122 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 04-6071
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tariq WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tariq WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6071.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2005.
Decided: March 4, 2005.
Tariq Williams, Appellant pro se.
Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tariq Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order, recharacterizing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the court's earlier denial of his motion to modify his sentence as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.2004) (applying the COA requirement to appellate review of the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir.2004). 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 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