Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shannon Derrell WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-24
Citations: 195 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 06-6423
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shannon Derrell WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shannon Derrell WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6423.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 24, 2006.
Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shannon Derrell Williams seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. The orders are not appealable 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite show ing. 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.