United States v. Hooks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREDERICK DOUGLAS HOOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREDERICK DOUGLAS HOOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-547; CA-05-346-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Douglas Hooks, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Douglas Hooks seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369-70
(4th Cir. 2004). 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 (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 Hooks has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeals. 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
- 3 -