United States v. Williams , 195 F. App'x 185 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6423
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SHANNON DERRELL WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:02-cr-00085-JRS-AL; 3:05-cv-00100-JRS)
    Submitted:   July 28, 2006                 Decided:   August 24, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Shannon Derrell Williams seeks to appeal the district
    court’s orders denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion
    and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.
    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    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: 06-6423

Citation Numbers: 195 F. App'x 185

Judges: King, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 8/24/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024