United States of America v. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. CR-92-83

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6846
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-92-83)
Submitted: March 20, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Sinclair Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael James Elston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Owen Matthew Kendler, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Larry Sinclair Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.
Williams’ motion sought relief from the district court’s 1993 order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be
taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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
for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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
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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --