US v. Thomas Cook, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 6:10-cr-00296-HMH-4,6:12-cv-02538-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999139946]. Mailed to: Thomas Cook, III. [13-6368]

Appeal: 13-6368

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/28/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6368

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS COOK, III, a/k/a Mex, a/k/a Sport,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:10-cr-00296-HMH-4; 6:12-cv-02538-HMH)

Submitted:

June 18, 2013

Decided:

June 28, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Cook, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark C. Moore, Stanley D.
Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South
Carolina, Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY,
Carrie
Fisher
Sherard,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6368

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/28/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Cook, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Cook has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-6368

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 06/28/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3