Case Name: Samiri Romaine WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-02
Citations: 120 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: No. 04-7127
Parties: Samiri Romaine WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
Samiri Romaine WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7127.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 2, 2005.
Samiri Romaine Williams, Appellant pro se.
Jennifer Ransom Franklin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Samiri Romaine Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently re viewed 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