Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rawle Anthony COLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-30
Citations: 161 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 05-7221
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff— Appellee, v. Rawle Anthony COLE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 248–248

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff— Appellee, v. Rawle Anthony COLE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7221.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 22, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 30, 2005.
Rawle Anthony Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rawle Anthony Cole seeks to appeal from the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and granting in part and denying in part his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cole 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED