Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-14
Citations: 111 F. App'x 168
Docket Number: No. 04-6975
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 168–169

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6975.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2004.
Decided Oct. 14, 2004.
Shon Conner Williams, Appellant pro se. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Shon Conner Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is 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 showing. Accordingly, we deny his 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