Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Earl WILLIAMS, a/k/a Willie Earl Williams, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-10
Citations: 104 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 03-7348
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Earl WILLIAMS, a/k/a Willie Earl Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Earl WILLIAMS, a/k/a Willie Earl Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7348.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 10, 2004.
William Earl Williams, Appellant pro se.
John Howarth Bennett, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Earl Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 his constitutional claims are 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 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