UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7219
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CRAIG DOCKERY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:01-cr-00046-F; 7:04-cv-00092-F)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Dockery, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Craig Dockery seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is
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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Dockery has not
made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
*
In addition to the reasons stated by the district court,
Dockery’s claim filed pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.
296 (2004), is not cognizable, as such a claim does not apply
retroactively to cases on collateral review. See United States v.
Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims based on counsel’s failure to object
pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and failure to bring him a
tape recorder so Dockery personally could hear the taped evidence
against him prior to pleading guilty are without merit as Dockery
failed to establish error and prejudice, as required by Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984).
- 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 -