United States of America v. Gordon Gray Cockerham

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6714
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GORDON GRAY COCKERHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-70074-4; CA-05-221-7)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gordon Gray Cockerham, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gordon Gray Cockerham 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
the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
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
Cockerham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See also
United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding
that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). 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 of 2 --