US v. Brookins
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD LEE BROOKINS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00153-RAJ; 2:06-cv-00143-RAJ)
December 21, 2006
January 3, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Lee Brookins, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ronald Lee Brookins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Brookins has not made the requisite showing. Although Brookins' § 2255 motion
was timely, see Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003), we nevertheless find that he has failed to make the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability to issue. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 69-72 (4th Cir. See United States v. cert. denied,
___U.S.___, 75 U.S.L.W. 3167 (Oct. 2, 2006) (No. 05-11378) (holding that decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
- 2 -
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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?