Case Name: Donald Lee WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.H. POWELL, Warden, Brunswick Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 234 F. App'x 174
Docket Number: No. 06-8083
Parties: Donald Lee WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. R.H. POWELL, Warden, Brunswick Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 174–174

Head Matter:
Donald Lee WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. R.H. POWELL, Warden, Brunswick Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-8083.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 13, 2007.
Decided: July 27, 2007.
Donald Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donald Lee Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 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 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.