United States v. Williams

156 F. App'x 602

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6905

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jermaine Thomas Williamson, a/k/a James Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jerry Williamson, a/k/a Jerminie Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy Jermaine Williamson, a/k/a Kenneth Goss,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-01-183; CA-05-86)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jimmy Lee Williams seeks to appeal from the district

court’s orders dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motions for reconsideration.

The orders are 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district

court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 -