UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6916
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EUGENE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00049-BO-1; 4:16-cv-00284-
BO)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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