Filed: Apr. 24, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6170 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT WILLIAM COLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:06-cr-00506-HMH-1; 7:07-cv-70098-HMH) Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6170 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT WILLIAM COLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:06-cr-00506-HMH-1; 7:07-cv-70098-HMH) Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6170
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT WILLIAM COLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:06-cr-00506-HMH-1; 7:07-cv-70098-HMH)
Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert William Cole, Appellant Pro Se. W. Walter Wilkins, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert William Cole 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 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
- 2 -