UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7910
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS J. COBB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-90-509; CA-00-3932-4-12)
Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: August 6, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas J. Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas J. Cobb appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
construed by the district court as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final
order in a habeas proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Cobb has
not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense with oral
*
The district court construed Cobb’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
petition as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and
dismissed it as a successive motion lacking the authorization
required by § 2255. Having construed Cobb’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as a motion for authorization to file a successive
habeas petition, see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003), we conclude that
Cobb is not entitled to such authorization under the strictures of
§ 2255.
- 2 -
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
- 3 -