UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6949
DARRELL W. COOK, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ROBERT G. O’HARA,
Judge,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-04-146)
Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell W. Cook, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Darrell W. Cook, Jr., a Virginia prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) without prejudice for failure to
comply with a previous court order. An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
for claims addressed by a district court 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 reasonable jurists would find both 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 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. We also deny his pending motion for appointment of
counsel. 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 -