Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney H. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 219 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 06-8076
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney H. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 219
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney H. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-8076.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 5, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 27, 2007.
Rodney H. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney H. Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Williams has not made the requisite showing. Williams' appeal is essentially duplicative of his appeal in No. 06-7911. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion for transcripts. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.