UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6002
ANTHONY D. WILLIAMSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-97-405-R)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony D. Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony D. Williamson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion seeking reconsideration of the
district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Williamson has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, 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 -