US v. Paul Casto

Filing 920090701

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL FREDERICK CASTO, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00041-IMK-JSK-1; 1:07-cv-00135-IMKJSK)

Submitted:

June 15, 2009

Decided:

July 1, 2009

Before KING and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Frederick Casto, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Paul court's order Frederick accepting Casto the seeks to appeal of the district

recommendation

the

magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and the district court's order denying a

certificate of appealability. unless a circuit justice or

These orders are not appealable judge issues a certificate of

appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

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 Casto has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. moot Casto's motion to expedite.

We deny as

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3