United States v. Williams , 82 F. App'x 76 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7312
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RANDY GEAN WILLIAMS, a/k/a Malik Strong,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
    Judge. (CR-99-116, CA-03-134-2)
    Submitted:   November 19, 2003            Decided:   December 4, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randy Gean Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Randy Gean Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).                    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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (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    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7312

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 76

Filed Date: 12/4/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014