Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Eli COOK, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 667 F. App'x 31
Docket Number: No. 15-8019
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Eli COOK, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 31–31

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Eli COOK, III, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-8019
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2016
Decided: June 23, 2016
Ernest Eli Cook, III, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Eli Cook, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cook has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Cook's motion for 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