US v. James Rockett, III, No. 08-6891 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6891 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (2:05-cr-00135-WDK-JEB-1; 2:07-cv-00336-WDK) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 23, 2008 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Rockett, III, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Rockett, appeal 28 U.S.C. district The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent a constitutional prisoner substantial right. jurists constitutional of § 2255 appealability. (2000) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable his the motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court s judge denying III, 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2000). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Rockett has not made the certificate Additionally, requisite of we showing. appealability deny Rockett s Accordingly, and dismiss motions transcripts and to expand the record. for we the deny a appeal. production of 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.