United States v. Cockerham

172 F. App'x 552

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 28, 2006
• Docket: 05-6714
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GORDON GRAY COCKERHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-03-70074-4; CA-05-221-7)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gordon Gray Cockerham, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Gordon Gray Cockerham seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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

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 that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable 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

Cockerham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See also

United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding

that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -