United States v. Kokoski ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6941
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-96-64; CA-02-79-5)
Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,
John Lanier File, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Kokoski seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims
addressed by a district court 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Kokoski has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Kokoski’s
motions to amend the caption and for immediate release on bail. 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 -