Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick Douglas HOOKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-31
Citations: 147 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 05-7015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Frederick Douglas HOOKS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 147
Pages: 393–393

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Frederick Douglas HOOKS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7015.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 31, 2005.
Frederick Douglas Hooks, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Douglas Hooks seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369-70 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Hooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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