US v. Andrew Kacvinsky

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00075-LMB-1,1:10-cv-00573-LMB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998539693] [10-7030]

US v. Andrew Kacvinsky

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7030

Document: 11

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW WOODS KACVINSKY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00075-LMB-1; 1:10-cv-00573-LMB)

Submitted:

February 28, 2011

Decided:

March 8, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Woods Kacvinsky, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Joseph Grooms, III, Lauren Anne Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7030

Document: 11

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Andrew Woods Kacvinsky seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Kacvinsky has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Case: 10-7030

Document: 11

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3