UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7305
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD LEE BROOKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00153-RAJ; 2:06-cv-00143-RAJ)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Lee Brookins, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Lee Brookins 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 Brookins has
not made the requisite showing. Although Brookins’ § 2255 motion
was timely, see Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003), we
nevertheless find that he has failed to make the requisite showing
for a certificate of appealability to issue. See United States v.
Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 69-72 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
___U.S.___, 75 U.S.L.W. 3167 (Oct. 2, 2006) (No. 05-11378) (holding
that decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) is
not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
- 2 -
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
- 3 -