82 FAPPX 76 - United States v. Williams

                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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