United States v. Kokoski

174 F. App'x 149

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6941

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-96-64; CA-02-79-5)

Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, John Lanier File, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael Allen Kokoski seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 that his constitutional claims are 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 (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 Kokoski has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Kokoski’s

motions to amend the caption and for immediate release on bail. 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 -