US v. Jack Rosga


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00170-HEH-1,3:13-cv-00792-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999613808]. Mailed to: Jack Rosga. [15-6200]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6200 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6200 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JACK ROSGA, a/k/a Milwaukee Jack, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00170-HEH-1; 3:13-cv-00792-HEH) Submitted: June 16, 2015 Decided: July 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amy Leigh Austin, LAW OFFICE OF AMY L. AUSTIN, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Richard Daniel Cooke, Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6200 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jack Rosga seeks to appeal the district court’s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. order The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rosga has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We legal Appeal: 15-6200 Doc: 7 contentions Filed: 07/02/2015 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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?