UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7953
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODERICK LAMAR WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00004-RLV-DSC-8; 5:08-cv-
00041-RLV)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: June 10, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roderick Lamar Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Lamar Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2012) motion and denying his motion to alter or amend that
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). These orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006);
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) (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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Williams’ motion to place this appeal in abeyance, deny
his motion to supplement his request for a certificate of
appealability, deny his motion for leave to file his motion to
supplement, 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
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3