Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darnell James COOK, a/k/a Gingerbread, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-14
Citations: 109 F. App'x 529
Docket Number: No. 04-6187
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darnell James COOK, a/k/a Gingerbread, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 529–530

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darnell James COOK, a/k/a Gingerbread, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6187.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 9, 2004.
Decided: Sept. 14, 2004.
Darnell James Cook, Appellant pro se.
Chan Park, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; James Clarke Howard, Chesapeake Meridian, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Darnell James Cook, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying 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 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cook 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