Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Odell WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-27
Citations: 326 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 08-8135
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Odell WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Odell WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8135.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2009.
Decided: May 27, 2009.
Charles Odell Williams, Rudolf A. Ren-fer, Jr. Raleigh, North Carolina, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Odell Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifícate of appeal-ability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams' motion for 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.