United States v. Cole

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7221 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAWLE ANTHONY COLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1126; CA-04-21858-JFA) Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rawle Anthony Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rawle Anthony Cole seeks to appeal from the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and granting in part and denying in part his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable 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 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 that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cole has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED