United States v. Kokoski , 203 F. App'x 477 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7471
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (5:92-00090-01; 5:01-cv-00944)
Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 24, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Kokoski seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his Rule 60(b) motion and denying his motion
to quash, as well as other related motions. Kokoski sought to
reopen the proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 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 Kokoski has not made
the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Kokoski’s motion for oral
argument. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.*
DISMISSED
*
To the extent Kokoski may be seeking authorization under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion, we deny authorization.
- 3 -