US v. Jerry Cook

Filing 920090122

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7365

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERRY COOK, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:02-cr-00516-LDW-1; 1:05-cv-01076-LDW)

Submitted:

January 15, 2009

Decided:

January 22, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Joseph Rossi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Jerry Cook seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his "Motion for Review of Sentence Under Coram Nobis and New Case Law" as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is not judge issues a A "a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability will not issue absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

reasonable

jurists

that 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). that we We have independently has not made motion reviewed the for the record and

conclude

Cook deny

requisite a

showing. of

Accordingly,

Cook's

certificate

appealability and dismiss the 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. DISMISSED 2