US v. Steven Nadroski
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN NADROSKI, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00027-RAJ-JEB-2; 4:07-cv-00115-RAJ)
October 14, 2008
October 17, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Nadroski, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Steven Nadroski 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. A certificate of appealability 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). will not issue absent "a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 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 Nadroski has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Nadroski's motion for a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny Nadroski's motion for appointment of counsel.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?