United States v. Rooks , 117 F. App'x 237 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6988
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALPHELIOUS ANTOINE ROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-312; CA-03-356)
Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Alphelious Antoine Rooks, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In this case, the district court denied relief on
Alphelious Antoine Rooks’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denied
Rooks’ motion to alter or amend the judgment. After noting his
appeal, Rooks requested that the district court issue a certificate
of appealability on five issues. The district court granted a
certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) whether counsel was
ineffective for failure to investigate Rooks’ criminal history and
for stipulating to a factually erroneous history; and (2) whether
Rooks’ Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the judge, not
the jury, made determinations relating to drug quantity and first
degree murder. The court denied a certificate of appealability on
the following issues: (3) whether counsel was ineffective for not
calling Rooks to the stand; (4) whether counsel was ineffective for
not investigating Kermic Williams as a potential defense witness;
and (5) whether counsel’s cumulative errors constituted ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Rooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on claims (1) and (2) and denying his motion to alter or
amend. He also moves to expand the certificate of appealability to
include claims (3) and (4). With regard to the denial of relief on
claims (1) and (2), we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the
- 2 -
district court. Nos. CR-99-312; CA-03-356 (E.D. Va. May 7, 2004
and June 22, 2004).
With regard to the district court’s denial of relief on
claims (3) and (4), 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 both 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Rooks has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion to expand the
certificate of appealability, deny a certificate of appealability,
and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot the motion to place the
case in abeyance pending the district court’s ruling on the motion
for a certificate of appealability. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART