UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7263
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; THEODIS
BECK, Secretary of Corrections,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-299-1)
Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: January 3, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion
seeking reconsideration of the district court’s order adopting and
affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of several post-judgment
motions in Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) action. The order is
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 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 Williams’ motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and
- 2 -
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
- 3 -