Court Opinion

ID: 1019557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:37:15.981606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:28.470059
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

PAUL HOLLAND COCKERAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
Chief District Judge. (CR-98-68; CA-05-259-3-V-5)

Submitted: May 18, 2006                          Decided: May 30, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Holland Cockeran, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

               Paul   Holland    Cockeran     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 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, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Cockeran 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

                                        - 2 -