United States v. Cole , 161 F. App'x 251 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7221
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAWLE ANTHONY COLE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Chief District
    Judge. (CR-98-1126; CA-04-21858-JFA)
    Submitted: December 22, 2005              Decided:   December 30, 2005
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Rawle Anthony Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Rawle Anthony Cole seeks to appeal from the district
    court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000), and granting in part and denying in part 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     the    district    court’s       assessment     of    his
    constitutional     claims       is   debatable     or    wrong    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 Cole 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7221

Citation Numbers: 161 F. App'x 251

Filed Date: 12/30/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021