US v. Ernest Cook, III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999794900-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00433-CCE-1,1:15-cv-00622-CCE-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-8019]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ERNEST ELI COOK, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00433-CCE-1; 1:15-cv-00622-CCE-JLW)
June 21, 2016
June 23, 2016
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ernest Eli Cook, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Harry L. Hobgood,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Ernest Eli Cook, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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
Cook’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?