US v. James Rockett, III

Filing 920081223

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6891

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. JAMES ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (2:05-cr-00135-WDK-JEB-1; 2:07-cv-00336-WDK)

Submitted:

December 11, 2008

Decided:

December 23, 2008

Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Rockett, III, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James court's motion. judge order Rockett, denying III, seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district (2000)

relief

§ 2255

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2000).

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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 Rockett has not made the of we requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss for we the deny a

certificate Additionally,

appealability deny Rockett's

appeal. of

motions

production

transcripts and to expand the record.

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