United States v. Williams , 210 F. App'x 297 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6774
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOSHUA RICARDO WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
    Judge. (5:03-cr-30113-GEC; 7:05-cv-00490-GEC)
    Submitted: December 21, 2006              Decided: December 29, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joshua Ricardo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED    STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Joshua Ricardo Williams seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on 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).   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: 06-6774

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 297

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, King

Filed Date: 12/29/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024