Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Lamar WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-10
Citations: 527 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 12-7953
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Lamar WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 527
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Lamar WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7953.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2013.
Decided: June 10, 2013.
Roderick Lamar Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Lamar Williams seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion and denying his motion to alter or amend that judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (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) (2006). 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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams' motion to place this appeal in abeyance, deny his motion to supplement his request for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for leave to file his motion to supplement, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.