United States v. Williams

60 F. App'x 977

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6214

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RODNEY WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-97-583, CA-02-2639-2-23)

Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 23, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Newton Schools, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Rodney Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

and his motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. An appeal may not be taken to this court

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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a

§ 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of

appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate

both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”

Rose v. Lee, 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941

(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