United States v. Williams , 177 F. App'x 284 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7858
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WESLEY BERNARD WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-01-198-CWH; CA-04-22859-CWH)
    Submitted:   April 7, 2006                 Decided:   April 19, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Wesley Bernard Williams, Appellant Pro Se.    Rose Mary Parham,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Wesley Bernard Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks a
    certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial
    of   his   
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
        (2000)     motion.       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 the district court’s assessment of his
    constitutional      claims      is     debatable    and   that       any    dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable or
    wrong.     See 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: 05-7858

Citation Numbers: 177 F. App'x 284

Judges: Duncan, King, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 4/19/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023