UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7801
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
A. E. WILLIAMSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (3:06-cv-02363-HMH)
Submitted: March 16, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER,* and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A. E. Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*
Judge Traxler was a member of the original panel but did not
participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by
a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
PER CURIAM:
A. E. Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal 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). 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, although we grant his
motion to supplement his motion for a certificate of appealability,
we deny Williamson’s motion for 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 -