Case Name: Vincent Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G. WASHINGTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-30
Citations: 144 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 05-6685
Parties: Vincent Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G. WASHINGTON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
Vincent Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G. WASHINGTON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6685.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 19, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2005.
Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and his motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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