Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry COOK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 308 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 08-7365
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry COOK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry COOK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7365.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 22, 2009.
Jerry Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Joseph Rossi, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Cook seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his "Motion for Review of Sentence Under Coram Nobis and New Case Law" as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.