UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROLAND A. WILLIAMS, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-03-146-AW; CA-04-92-AW)
Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roland A. Williams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Gina Laurie Simms,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roland A. Williams, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration and for a
certificate of appealability. 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.
Williams also asserts for the first time on appeal that
the trial judge was biased. Because this claim was not raised
below, Williams may not raise it now on appeal. See Muth v. United
States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -