United States v. Cook

                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7488



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


NORWOOD COOK,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (5:02-cr-30087-jhm-AL; 7:05-CV-00018-jpj-mf)


Submitted: November 21, 2006              Decided:   December 4, 2006


Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Norwood Cook, Appellant Pro Se.   Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,       Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Norwood Cook seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (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   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 Cook 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




                                - 2 -