Steven Rast v. US

Filing 920100526

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6496

STEVEN Z. RAST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:02-cr-00948-GRA-1; 7:03-cr-00429-GRA-1; 7:08-cv-70087-GRA)

Submitted:

February 11, 2010

Decided:

May 26, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Z. Rast, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Steven Z. Rast seeks to appeal the district court's order denying motion. * judge denying relief his on motion his 28 for reconsideration § 2255 of the Supp. order 2009)

U.S.C.A.

(West

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

issues

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2006).

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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 Rast has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate We dispense with oral

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

We note that the caption of the district court's order lists only Case No. 7:03-cr-00429-GRA. However, it is clear that the order also pertains to Case No. 6:02-cr-00948-GRA.

*

2

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

3