Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dondie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-22
Citations: 697 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 17-6594
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dondie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dondie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6594
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 19, 2017
Decided: September 22, 2017
Dondie Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen L. Vogrin, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dondie 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 certificate 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 courtjs 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