Court Opinion

ID: 8599918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:13:23.938769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:09.498003
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Roland A. Williams, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration and for a certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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.
Williams also asserts for the first time on appeal that the trial judge was biased. Because this claim was not raised below, Williams may not raise it now on appeal. *211See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).
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