Williams v. United States ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7623
    GLENN LEE WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:95-cr-00136-F-3; 5:98-cv-513-F)
    Submitted:   December 21, 2006             Decided:   January 5, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Glenn Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.      Douglas Wolcott Corkhill,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Glenn Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
    of the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.   The order is not appealable unless a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
    , 369
    (4th Cir. 2004).    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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (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 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: 06-7623

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, King

Filed Date: 1/5/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024