UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6298
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00123-HEH-1; 3:10-cv-00628-HEH)
Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea-Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have 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 grant Williams’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and we
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3