Case Name: Vincent Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L.K. KELLY, Warden, RespondentAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-21
Citations: 230 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 07-6320
Parties: Vincent Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L.K. KELLY, Warden, RespondentAppellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 304–304

Head Matter:
Vincent Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L.K. KELLY, Warden, RespondentAppellee.
No. 07-6320.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 21, 2007.
Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Tewolde, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and motion to reconsider. 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 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 Williams' motions for a certificate of appealability, for oral argument, for appointment of counsel, 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.
The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).