UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7289
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAMONDES WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00162-JKB-1; 1:15-cv-01436-JKB)
Submitted: April 20, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamondes Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamondes Williams seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The court’s denial of relief is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2