Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon Gray COCKERHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-28
Citations: 172 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 05-6714
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gordon Gray COCKERHAM, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gordon Gray COCKERHAM, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6714.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2006.
Decided March 28, 2006.
Gordon Gray Cockerham, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gordon Gray Cockerham seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cockerham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See also United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). 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