Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Asomani WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-05
Citations: 688 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 16-6921
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Asomani WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Asomani WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6921
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2017
Decided: May 5, 2017
Eugene Asomani Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Julia K. Martinez, Rachel Elaine No-naka, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Asomani 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 ap-pealability. 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 court's 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 deny as moot Williams' motion to place the appeal in abeyance pending a decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), and deny Williams' motions for appointment of counsel and to supplement the opening informal brief. 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