UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7177
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARK ANTHONY WILLIAMS, a/k/a Michael Nemhardt,
a/k/a Alex Cruz, a/k/a Smiley,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-97-142)
Submitted: February 24, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler,
Assistant United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Anthony Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b), seeking to reopen his motion also filed under Rule 60(b)
to reconsider his sentence of life imprisonment based on the
decisions in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); United
States v. Blakely, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); and Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000).* The order, which derives from the denial of
a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369
(4th Cir. 2004).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 684
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
*
To the extent Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
April 19, 2005 order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, his
notice of appeal is untimely.
- 2 -
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
- 3 -