UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER ANDARYL WILLS, a/k/a Michael
Wills, a/k/a Ed Short,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:99-cr-00396-LMB; 1:05-cv-00775-LMB)
Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 20, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Andaryl Wills, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Kevin Victor DiGregory, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Andaryl Wills seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion
and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.
The orders are 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 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 Wills has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Wills’ motions for appointment of counsel,
deny his 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 -